Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261741AbVAMW5T (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:57:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261715AbVAMWxq (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:53:46 -0500 Received: from cc15144-a.groni1.gr.home.nl ([217.120.147.78]:1456 "HELO boetes.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261803AbVAMWw0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:52:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:52:22 +0100 From: Han Boetes To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: propolice support for linux Message-ID: <20050113225244.GH14127@boetes.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050113134620.GA14127@boetes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1953 Lines: 54 Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Aside from all the arguments about why this patch isn't good for > the kernel, everybody should be aware that the ProPolice gcc > patches are pretty unusable. They rely in recognizing certain > tree patterns which for some architectures do not exist, and for > others can look differently, depending on the optimization. To > paraphrase one of the gcc developers: "this kind of > functionality should be written to work _with_ gcc, not > _against_ it as the propolice patch does". > > Before you suggest using something like this patch you better > first inform yourself by asking the people who actually know the > code which is modified. Ok I have a problem here. You are Ulrich Drepper and you are _the_ maintainer of glibc and I am Han Boetes and I am a C noob. It's like Kasparov trying to explain something to a club-chess-player. I'm afraid that whatever explanation you give to me is over my head, you'll feel like talking to a dummy and I'll be terribly unsatisfied. To avoid that I would like to ask you if you can show me some example-code, something I which can compile and run and see for myself, for the following situations: 1) Where an application compiled with PP is working worse or even failing where it would work right without PP. 2) Where a bufferoverflow can be exploited even though the application is compiled with PP. As an example where PP does work right the test-code provided by the propolice maintainer: /* test-propolice.c */ #define OVERFLOW "This is longer than 10 bytes" #include int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { char buffer[10]; strcpy(buffer, OVERFLOW); return 0; } # Han - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/