"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Robert C. Seacord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I believe the vulnerability is that gcc may *silently* discard the overflow >> checks and that this is a recent change in behavior. > > No it is not recent, unless you consider 1998 recent :). I don't know > how many times but we have not changed the behavior of GCC with > respect of signed integer overflow being undefined. Since the loop > optimizers have said this before, we just added an extra pass which > depends on it more. I guess you did not read the GCC mailing list > before posting this Vulnerability because we already discussed this > many many times before around the time GCC 4.2.0 came out. > > Also try -Wstrict-overflow=5 in GCC 4.2.3 and in GCC 4.3.0, we already > warn about most if not all cases already.
No, read the advisory carefully (from a compiler perspective, it's unfortunate that it does not give a complete test case). This advisory is not about undefined signed overflow. This is about adding a value to a pointer such that the pointer no longer points into the same object, which is a completely different type of undefined behaviour. C99 section 6.5.6, paragraph 8. gcc's behaviour changed with the patch for PR 27039. Although this is not undefined signed overflow, it is not unrelated from the user's perspective, and I plan to incorporate it into the -fstrict-overflow/ -Wstrict-overflow regime. Ian
