[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwZnkR5uA5Oe19Xzox=+Bcab-j6-+a=XGqS8yokDU3Dog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:29:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, 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()
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 2:43 AM, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
You are correct. We could just ignore the issue with old gcc versions,
and disable -Wvla rather than worry about it.
Linus
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.
