On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 13:03 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> - Moving nla_put_{u8,u16,u32} out of line is probably uncontroversial
> and
> it helps enough with br_netlink.c, but nl820211 is worse and needs
> some
> additional fiddling.
Why would that not be sufficient by itself for nl80211?
B
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 13:03 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> - Moving nla_put_{u8,u16,u32} out of line is probably uncontroversial
>> and
>> it helps enough with br_netlink.c, but nl820211 is worse and needs
>> some
>> additional fiddling
2017-02-08 16:10 GMT+03:00 Arnd Bergmann :
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Johannes Berg
> wrote:
>
>> Btw, what's causing this to start with? Can't the compiler reuse the
>> stack places?
>
> I have no idea. It's trying to find out of bounds accesses for
> objects on the stack, so maybe it gi
> From: Johannes Berg
> Sent: 08 February 2017 12:24
...
> Btw, what's causing this to start with? Can't the compiler reuse the
> stack places?
Only if it realises they've gone out of scope - which probably
doesn't happen when the functions are inlined.
The address of the parameter can be saved by