On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Kees Cook wrote:
>> >
>> >> In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
>> >> build with -Wvla. However, this warning is
* Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> >> In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
> >> build with -Wvla. However, this warning is overly pessimistic, in that
> >> it is only happy with stack arr
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
>> build with -Wvla. However, this warning is overly pessimistic, in that
>> it is only happy with stack array sizes that are declared as consta
Hi Kees,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.16-rc7 next-20180327]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/c
To give credit where credit is due, this hack was inspired by
an equally insane (but different) use of the ?: operator to choose
the right return type for type-generic macros in tgmath.h.
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=math/tgmath.h;h=a709a5
9d0fa1168ef03349561169fc5bd27d65aa;
Hi Kees,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on linus/master]
[also build test WARNING on v4.16-rc7 next-20180326]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/c
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
> build with -Wvla. However, this warning is overly pessimistic, in that
> it is only happy with stack array sizes that are declared as constant
> expressions, and not const
From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 26 March 2018 23:16
...
> +#define __typecheck(x, y) \
> + (!!(sizeof((typeof(x)*)1 == (typeof(y)*)1)))
The two 1 should probably be at least 8 before the compiler starts
bleating about accesses to misaligned addresses being undefined.
David
* Kees Cook wrote:
> In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
> build with -Wvla. However, this warning is overly pessimistic, in that
> it is only happy with stack array sizes that are declared as constant
> expressions, and not constant values. One case of this i
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> This patch updates the min()/max() macros to evaluate to a constant
> expression when called on constant expression arguments.
Ack.
I'm of two minds whether that "__is_constant()" macro should be
explained or not.
A small voice in my head s
10 matches
Mail list logo
