> On Aug 1, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
>> does not say anything about the object it points to,
>> So, __builtin_object_size can not directly
> On Aug 2, 2023, at 2:25 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 01.08.2023 um 15:45 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
>>> does not say anything about the
Am Dienstag, dem 01.08.2023 um 15:45 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
> >does not say anything about the object it points to,
> >So, __builtin_object_size can
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 08:14:42PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> /* In general, Due to type casting, the type for the pointee of a pointer
>does not say anything about the object it points to,
>So, __builtin_object_size can not directly use the type of the pointee
>to decide the size of
Hi,
After some detailed study and consideration on how to use the new attribute
“counted_by”
in __builtin_dynamic_object_size, I came up with the following example with
detailed explanation
on the expected behavior from GCC on using this new attribute.
Please take a look on this example and
>>
>> The point is: allocation size should synced with the value of “counted_by”.
>> LLVM’s RFC also have the similar requirement:
>> https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-enforcing-bounds-safety-in-c-fbounds-safety/70854#maintaining-correctness-of-bounds-annotations-18
>
> Right, I'm saying it
More thoughts on the following example Kees provided:
> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> The counted_by attribute is used to annotate a Flexible array member on how
>> many elements it will have.
>> However, if this information can not accurately reflect the real number of
Am Montag, dem 17.07.2023 um 16:40 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocated,
> > > if I'm
> > > reading that
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>
On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
In the bug, the problem is that
Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 16:25 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Martin Uecker
> > wrote:
> >
> > Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 15:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On
> On Jul 18, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 15:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM,
Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 15:37 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In the bug, the
> On Jul 17, 2023, at 7:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocated, if I'm
>>> reading that correctly?
>>
>> I think that
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:17:48PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocated, if I'm
> > reading that correctly?
>
> I think that the major point in PR109557
>
> On Jul 13, 2023, at 4:31 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> In the bug, the problem is that "p" isn't known to be allocated, if I'm
> reading that correctly?
I think that the major point in PR109557
(https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109557):
for the following pointer p.3_1,
p.3_1 = p;
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 06:56:21PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Kees,
>
> I have updated my V1 patch with the following changes:
> A. changed the name to "counted_by"
> B. changed the argument from a string to an identifier
> C. updated the documentation and testing cases accordingly.
Sounds
The following is the updated documentation on this new attribute, please let me
know any suggestion and comment:
==
'counted_by (COUNT)'
The 'counted_by' attribute may be attached to the flexible array
member of a structure. It indicates that the number of the
elements of
> On Jul 6, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Donnerstag, dem 06.07.2023 um 18:56 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>> Hi, Kees,
>>
>> I have updated my V1 patch with the following changes:
>> A. changed the name to "counted_by"
>> B. changed the argument from a string to an identifier
>>
Am Donnerstag, dem 06.07.2023 um 18:56 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
> Hi, Kees,
>
> I have updated my V1 patch with the following changes:
> A. changed the name to "counted_by"
> B. changed the argument from a string to an identifier
> C. updated the documentation and testing cases accordingly.
>
>
Hi, Kees,
I have updated my V1 patch with the following changes:
A. changed the name to "counted_by"
B. changed the argument from a string to an identifier
C. updated the documentation and testing cases accordingly.
And then used this new gcc to test
> On May 26, 2023, at 12:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> This patch set introduces a new attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds
>> for C99 flexible array member.
>
> Thank you for this work! I'm really excited to start using it
> On May 26, 2023, at 4:40 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> GCC will pass the number of elements info from the attached attribute to
>> both
>> __builtin_dynamic_object_size and bounds sanitizer to check the out-of-bounds
>> or dynamic
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> GCC will pass the number of elements info from the attached attribute to both
> __builtin_dynamic_object_size and bounds sanitizer to check the out-of-bounds
> or dynamic object size issues during runtime for flexible array members.
>
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:14:47PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> This patch set introduces a new attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds
> for C99 flexible array member.
Thank you for this work! I'm really excited to start using it in the
Linux kernel. I'll give this a spin, but I know you've
Hi,
This patch set introduces a new attribute "element_count" to annotate bounds
for C99 flexible array member.
A gcc bugzilla PR108896 has been created to record this task:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
A nice writeup "Bounded Flexible Arrays in C"
25 matches
Mail list logo
