[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a2996a7c63930b9d9a8d3792358dd9e494e27c1.camel@gwdg.de>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 20:19:37 +0100
From: Martin Uecker <muecker@...g.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Vincent Mailhol
<mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, "Nick
Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Joonas Lahtinen
<joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Rikard Falkeborn
<rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>, "linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "llvm@...ts.linux.dev"
<llvm@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "coresight@...ts.linaro.org"
<coresight@...ts.linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] compiler.h: add is_const() as a replacement of
__is_constexpr()
Am Samstag, dem 07.12.2024 um 10:26 -0800 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 05:07, Martin Uecker <muecker@...g.de> wrote:
> >
> > VLA use *less* stack than a fixed size arrays with fixed bound.
>
> Not really. You end up with tons of problems, not the least of which
> is how to actually analyze the stack size. It also gets *very* nasty
> to have code that declares the VLA size using an argument that is then
> checked afterwards - and if you have a strong preference for
> "declarations before code", you end up with *horrific* issues.
>
> And even if you are super-careful, and you solved the analysis
> problem, in practice VLAs will cause huge stack issues simply due to
> code generation issues. The compiler will end up doing extra
> alignment and extra frame handling and saving, to the point where any
> advantages the VLA would bring is completely dwarfed by all the
> disadvantages.
But that all seem solvable issues on the compiler side. If you
said the maximum stack size for arrays we tolerate is X,
then a compiler could tell you if
a) this is not guaranteed in a specific situation (-Wvla-larher-than)
and
b) transform the array automatically to fixed size array
of size X *or* something smaller when it can show this.
Because now you do the exact same thing manually while losing
precise bounds checking.
Martin
>
> We went through this. We are so *much* better off without VLAs that
> it's not even funny.
>
> Now when the compiler says "your stack size is big", you just look
> "Oh, that struct should be allocated with kmalloc, not on the stack".
> Boom. Done.
>
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists