On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> So to reiterate, your logic here is that someone would wipe dlsym type
>> (e.g. by casting to void *), then later cast to another type which
>> lacks tailcall attribute. So proposed solution won'
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > The one and only advantage of attribute compared to Jakubs approach
> > (or yours, they share the same idea of wrapping dlsym calls) is that
> > it forces user to carry it around when taking address of function.
>
> It's an inconvenience. People w
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> So to reiterate, your logic here is that someone would wipe dlsym type
> (e.g. by casting to void *), then later cast to another type which
> lacks tailcall attribute. So proposed solution won't protect against
> situation like this.
No, it's not "my logic
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
>> > Glibc people were worried that attribute would be lost when taking a
>> > pointer to function
>> > (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00482.html). I think
>> > their reasoning was th
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 1) recognize dlsym by name and suppress tailcalls to it
> >
> >this would solve >99% cases because calling dlsym by pointer would be
> > rare,
> >and has the benefit of not requiring libc header changes;
>
> Recognizing by name is IMNSHO unde
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 06:30:40PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > Glibc people were worried that attribute would be lost when taking a
> > > pointer to function
> > > (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00482.html). I think
> > > their reas
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Glibc people were worried that attribute would be lost when taking a
> > pointer to function
> > (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00482.html). I think
> > their reasoning was that return address is a shadow argument for
> > dlsym-like functio
On 07/03/2017 12:08 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>> 0001-Added-no_tail_call-attribute.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> From 1f4590e7a633c6335512b012578bddba7602b3c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Yury Gribov
>>> Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 21:02:20 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] Added no_tail_call attribute.
>>>
>>> gcc/
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/29/2017 11:24 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As discussed in
>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00455.html , some
>>> libdl functions rely on return address
On 05/29/2017 11:24 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As discussed in
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00455.html , some
>> libdl functions rely on return address to figure out the calling
>> DSO and then use this inform
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As discussed in
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-01/msg00455.html , some
> libdl functions rely on return address to figure out the calling
> DSO and then use this information in computation (e.g. output of dlsym
> depend
11 matches
Mail list logo
