https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> To me, two things are unclear in the quote: whether the option is intended
> to be used with other languages at all, and why specifically it "is not
> generally sufficient to protect against stack-clash at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab ---
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #9)
> FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting
> to use it for this purpose too. See for example
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
> We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a
> la Ada, it's stack protection against clash attacks and it indeed has
> differ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I don't see that as implicit, and it's certainly not true for
> -fstack-clash-protection.
We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a la
Ada, it's stack protection against
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #11 from Rich Felker ---
This problem starded because I read "not generally sufficient" in the sense
that it's helpful but not a complete fix for the kinds of issues that
-fstack-clash-protection mitigates. Based on my findings and fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Okay, so can you please document that -fstack-check probes one extra page
> ahead by design, skipping one page adjacent to current stack pointer on the
> assumption that callers are also compiled with -fst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #9 from Rich Felker ---
FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting to
use it for this purpose too. See for example
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21253
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> We cannot reasonably document that a feature does exactly the opposite of
> what it is intended to do, can we? You need to compile the entire software
> with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, even accepting the purpose in 1, what I described in 2 seems like a
> bug. If it needs an extra page past what's actually used, it needs to make
> one probe in the last-used page to ensure it doesn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #6 from Rich Felker ---
Eric, even accepting the purpose in 1, what I described in 2 seems like a bug.
If it needs an extra page past what's actually used, it needs to make one probe
in the last-used page to ensure it doesn't jump a g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
--- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Eric, can you please contribute a documentation patch that would explain
> what -fstack-check is designed to do? Existing documentation does not say
> anything about the extra page. Is it supposed to be use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
13 matches
Mail list logo
