On 11/16/2012 01:21 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
-start_objects (int method_type, int initp)
+start_objects (int method_type, int initp, const char *extra_name)
I don't think we want to mess with start_objects and such here. Can't
you just use
DECL_STATIC_CONSTRUCTOR (decl) = 1;
SET
On 2012-11-16 13:24 , Caroline Tice wrote:
Index: gcc/cp/decl2.c
===
--- gcc/cp/decl2.c (revision 193571)
+++ gcc/cp/decl2.c (working copy)
@@ -69,8 +69,8 @@ typedef struct priority_info_s {
static void mark_vtable_entrie
Most likely use-after-free issues, but any memory use bug lays the
program open to these attacks.
-- Caroline Tice
cmt...@google.com
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 06:48 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
>
>> As requested, I have split the original patch into two p
On 11/05/2012 06:48 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
As requested, I have split the original patch into two parts: GCC
changes and runtime library changes. The attached patch is fore the
gcc changes.
Out of curiosity, what's the primary source of wrong vtable values you
expect? User-after-free issu
See some random comments below. Some test cases should also be added.
It should be easy to fake the attack by using placement new with
incompatible type ..
David
> /* Start the process of running a particular set of global constructors
> or destructors. Subroutine of do_[cd]tors. */
>
>
