void added a comment. In D123544#3446416 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123544#3446416>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> However, I had forgotten that the base feature *requires* the user to pass a > randomization seed via a flag in addition to requiring the attribute (thank > you for bringing that back to my attention). Because this feature requires a > feature flag to enable it, this behavior *is* a conforming extension (the > user has to take an action to get the new behavior). That said, I'm still not > convinced we want to do this automagically for users -- it's *really* easy > for that flag to be set in a makefile somewhere and the user has no idea that > their (non-designated) initialization is now a security vulnerability. If we > had error diagnostics when the user is about to shoot their foot off, I'd be > more comfortable with the automatic hardening behavior. We should definitely emit an error if a user is trying to use a default initializer for a structure that's up for randomization. It's something that affects the whole feature, not just structs of function pointers. Let me work on that. But otherwise are you okay with this patch? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123544/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123544 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
