[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0e94e9582bec4373b5e21c612be179ac@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:43:13 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, "Randy
Dunlap" <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ian Abbott
<abbotti@....co.uk>, linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, linux-btrfs
<linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()
From: linus971@...il.com [mailto:linus971@...il.com] On Behalf Of Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 18 March 2018 23:36
...
>
> Yeah, and since we're in the situation that *new* gcc versions work
> for us anyway, and we only have issues with older gcc's (that sadly
> people still use), even if there was a new cool feature we couldn't
> use it.
Is it necessary to have the full checks for old versions of gcc?
Even -Wvla could be predicated on very recent gcc - since we aren't
worried about whether gcc decides to generate a vla, but whether
the source requests one.
David
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.
