[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=UzQ-jnQrxzvLE6EV37zSVCOGPmsVTxyfp1wXzBir4vAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 15:48:28 +0200
From: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, andy@...nel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string: use __builtin_memcpy() in strlcpy/strlcat
>
> I *think* this isn't a problem for CONFIG_FORTIFY, since these will be
> replaced and checked separately -- but it still seems strange that you
> need to explicitly use __builtin_memcpy.
>
> Does this end up changing fortify coverage?
Is fortify relevant here? Note that the whole file is compiled with
__NO_FORTIFY.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists