https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
nrk at disroot dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nrk at disroot dot org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
uecker at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uecker at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
--- Comment #8 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
(In reply to Martin Uecker from comment #7)
> For __builtin_with_access we probably only want to allow
> reducing the object size, while the 'extend_size' workaroundÂ
> used by systemd (cf comment #4) wo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
--- Comment #7 from Martin Uecker ---
Am Mittwoch, dem 25.10.2023 um 11:08 + schrieb siddhesh at gcc dot gnu.org:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
>
> --- Comment #6 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
> So basically,
>
> __b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
--- Comment #6 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
So basically,
__builtin_with_access(void *ptr, size_t size, int access)
where access ==
-1: Unknown access semantics
0: none
1: read_only
2: write_only
3: read_write
should address both access and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
--- Comment #5 from Siddhesh Poyarekar ---
This could work for alloc_size, but not quite for access. pointer_with_size
(or __builtin_with_size as you suggested in that thread) would need to express
access semantics too, to be able to express eve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://github.com/systemd/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #3 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
PaX Team changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pageexec at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503
Kees Cook changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kees at outflux dot net
--- Comment #1 from
10 matches
Mail list logo
