Re: [PATCH] x86/boot: Rename overlapping memcpy() to memmove()

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> >> --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/string.c
> >> @@ -1,7 +1,13 @@
> >> +/*
> >> + * This provides an optimized implementation of memcpy, and a simplified
> >> + * implementation of memset and memmove, to avoid problems with the
> >> + * built-in implementations when running in the restricted decompression
> >> + * stub environment.
> >> + */
> >
> > Does 'built in' here mean the compiler's implementation?
> >
> > We cannot call kernel built-in functions yet, so we have to duplicate everything
> > we might need, right?
> 
> Right, I actually mean both: we can use neither gcc nor kernel
> built-ins. (I am fuzzy on why the gcc built-ins aren't available -- I
> think because they're not available for standalone builds.)

I think part of it is that we simply don't trust libgcc: it might be using FPU ops 
or it might start doing something silly from a kernel perspective while 
language-lawyering their way out of the regression with some sort of 'we never 
promised to keep that kind of detail stable'.

The smaller the cross-surface to a historically compatibility-breakage-happy 
compiler like GCC the better.

Thanks,

	Ingo