From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68F6C6FD1D for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 15:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232303AbjC0PyX (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:54:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53350 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229498AbjC0PyV (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:54:21 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D8126AB for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 08:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 32RFsBE0020818; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:54:11 +0200 Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:54:11 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= , Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] tools/nolibc: tests: add test for -fstack-protector Message-ID: References: <89a960c7-0c9b-43ab-9fc8-a68405f7ed6a@p183> <8e156377-e7d9-48ec-a7ee-292aba002201@t-8ch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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