From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Thomas Weißschuh" <thomas@t-8ch.de>,
"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:54:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZCG8I7dVafU/BCGx@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c0584807-511c-4496-b062-1263ea38f349@p183>
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.
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-27 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-26 18:30 [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector Alexey Dobriyan
2023-03-26 18:42 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-03-26 18:45 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-26 19:38 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2023-03-26 19:42 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-03-27 15:32 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2023-03-27 15:54 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2023-03-27 23:20 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2023-03-28 4:59 ` Willy Tarreau
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-25 15:45 [PATCH 0/8] tools/nolibc: add support for stack protector Willy Tarreau
2023-03-25 15:45 ` [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector Willy Tarreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZCG8I7dVafU/BCGx@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas@t-8ch.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox