Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:59:08 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector |
| |
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:20:32PM +0000, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > On 2023-03-27 17:54:11+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 06:32:51PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 09:42:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 10:38:39PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > > > > > I'm not seeing any issue with your approach instead, let's > > > > > > keep it as-is for now (also it does what the stack protector is supposed > > > > > > to catch anyway). > > > > > > > > > > There are no guarantess about stack layout and dead writes. > > > > > The test doesn't corrupt stack reliably, just 99.99% reliably. > > > > > > > > Sure but it's for a regtest which can easily be adjusted and its > > > > posrtability and ease of maintenance outweights its reliability, > > > > especially when in practice what the code does is what we want to > > > > test for. And if an extra zero needs to be added to the loop, it > > > > can be at a lower cost than maintaining arch-specific asm code. > > > > > > For the record, I disagree. Use volatile writes at least. > > > > Yeah I agree on the volatile one. > > Sounds good. > > How do we proceed? > > Do I send a new revision? > Will you fix up the series? > Will someone create a new patch? If so who?
Please just send an additional patch to be applied on top of the existing series that turns this to volatile, and add a Reported-by: with Alexey's e-mail.
You may even verify that once you do this it's safe to remove the optimize attributes.
Thank you! Willy
| |