|
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0ko9E91jok0fSnwQ__vO8nzBpmki768t_-Z9MhZ_f-JQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:47:54 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>, Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 4/7] x86/entry: Erase kernel stack in syscall_trace_enter() On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:01:20 -0800 > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> Then the optimization passes will just remove the initialization in >> 99.9% of all cases. Only very occasionally - when gcc cannot see it >> being overwritten - would it remain. And those are exactly the cases >> where you *want* it to remain. > > You mean have gcc fill in the variables that it thinks is used > uninitialized with zeros? As long as it still warns about it, because > that usually catches some real bugs where zeroing the variable doesn't > actually fix the bug. > > I also tried the example Arnd posted with: > > > int g(int c) > { > int i; > if (c) /* gcc optimizes out the condition as nothing else sets i */ > i = 1; > return i; > } > > And he's right. -O2 doesn't warn :-( I think that it should. See this bug that has been open since 2004 and the 31 bugs that have been marked as duplicates since then: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501 I don't really understand it myself, but I do understand that the gcc developers think this is a hard problem to solve. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.