> On Jul 15, 2021, at 9:16 AM, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches
> wrote:
>
>>
Note that I think .DEFERRED_INIT can be elided for variables that do
not have their address
taken - otherwise we'll also have to worry about aggregate copy
initialization and SRA
decomposing
Hi, Richard,
> On Jul 15, 2021, at 2:56 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi, Kees,
I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous
email, and found the testing failed with the following case:
>>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 4:10 PM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi, Richard,
>
> > On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Kees,
> >>
> >> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous
> >> email
> On Jul 14, 2021, at 4:23 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 07:30:45PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi, Kees,
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:09:50PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi, Richard,
> On Jul 14, 202
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 07:30:45PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Kees,
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:09:50PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >> Hi, Richard,
> >>
> >>> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> O
Hi, Kees,
> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:09:50PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
Hi, Kees,
I
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 02:09:50PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Richard,
>
> > On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Kees,
> >>
> >> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous
Hi, Richard,
> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Kees,
>>
>> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous email,
>> and found the testing failed with the following case:
>>
>> #define
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi, Kees,
>
> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous email,
> and found the testing failed with the following case:
>
> #define INIT_STRUCT_static_all = { .one = arg->one,\
>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:16:59PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi, Kees,
>
> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous email,
> and found the testing failed with the following case:
>
> #define INIT_STRUCT_static_all = { .one = arg->one,\
>
Hi, Kees,
I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous email,
and found the testing failed with the following case:
#define INIT_STRUCT_static_all = { .one = arg->one,\
.two = arg->two,\
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 02:29:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I've extracted the kernel test to build for userspace, and it behaves
> the same way. See attached "stackinit.c".
I've adjusted this slightly (the "static" tests weren't testing the
correct thing, but the results remained the same). Here
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:28:55PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:38:02PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> >> This is the 4th version of the patch for the new security feature for GCC.
> >
> > It looks like padding initialization
Hi, Kees,
Thanks a lot for your testing on kernel testing cases.
I have some question in below:
> On Jul 12, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:38:02PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the 4th version of the patch for the new security feature for
Hi, Martin,
Thanks a lot for your experiments and examples, they are really helpful.
So, based on your study, I will delete the code that handle
grp_to_be_debug_replaced accesses in generate_subtree_deferred_init.
Let me know if you have further comments on this.
Qing
> On Jul 12, 2021, at 1
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:38:02PM +, Qing Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the 4th version of the patch for the new security feature for GCC.
>
> I have tested it with bootstrap on both x86 and aarch64, regression testing
> on both x86 and aarch64.
> Also compile and run CPU2017, without any
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 12 2021, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:51 AM, Richard Sandiford
>> wrote:
>>
>> Martin Jambor writes:
>>> On Thu, Jul 08 2021, Qing Zhao wrote:
(Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one
setting in my mail client, hopefully that c
> On Jul 12, 2021, at 2:51 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> Martin Jambor writes:
>> On Thu, Jul 08 2021, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> (Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one
>>> setting in my mail client, hopefully that can fix this issue).
>>>
>>> Hi, Martin,
>>>
>
Martin Jambor writes:
> On Thu, Jul 08 2021, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> (Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one
>> setting in my mail client, hopefully that can fix this issue).
>>
>> Hi, Martin,
>>
>> Thank you for the review and comment.
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM,
Hi,
> On Jul 9, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index c05d22f3e8f1..35051d7c6b96 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-sra.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c
@@ -384,6 +384,13 @@ static str
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 08 2021, Qing Zhao wrote:
> (Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one
> setting in my mail client, hopefully that can fix this issue).
>
> Hi, Martin,
>
> Thank you for the review and comment.
>
>> On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> di
(Resend this email since the previous one didn’t quote, I changed one setting
in my mail client, hopefully that can fix this issue).
Hi, Martin,
Thank you for the review and comment.
> On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
>> index c05
Hi, Martin,
Thank you for the review and comment.
On Jul 8, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Martin Jambor
mailto:mjam...@suse.cz>> wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c
index c05d22f3e8f1..35051d7c6b96 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-sra.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c
@@ -384,6 +384,13 @@ static struct
/* Num
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 07 2021, Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the 4th version of the patch for the new security feature for GCC.
I have been following the threads about this feature only very lightly,
so please accept my apologies if my comments are about something which
has been a
24 matches
Mail list logo
