From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-sender-0.a4lg.com (mail-sender.a4lg.com [153.120.152.154]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC2423854803; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:47:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EC2423854803 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=irq.a4lg.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=irq.a4lg.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail-sender-0.a4lg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56707300089; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 09:47:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=irq.a4lg.com; s=2017s01; t=1664876853; bh=xhSa/VRrmlTD+DcQqj+piEjXklNBT7SuYaW03Al0FXc=; h=Message-ID:Date:Mime-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VgxhtacS03FqtmJrMJG7gysSfXgrNbTqfcBHaYDXpFGztE9/JDOrvsiRl1TADYBwA NuBR4X656JKcVqoeJwl+BubxUINKMnWHUKiW2jOAZehv+yntWIjsU7vFuHNBcXt5s8 P/PBFKuWVxU8WBT+yxps2Riv2MeXfJ7p9un6chiE= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:47:32 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] RISC-V: Fix buffer overflow after long instruction support Content-Language: en-US To: Jan Beulich , Binutils , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <227e9854-f0bf-566a-42ef-5f14a145c6dc@suse.com> <8cc87571-4ef6-8474-0c40-186c5e38438d@irq.a4lg.com> From: Tsukasa OI In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2022/10/04 18:44, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 04.10.2022 11:26, Tsukasa OI wrote: >> On 2022/10/04 18:07, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 04.10.2022 10:59, Tsukasa OI wrote: >>>> After commit bb996692bd9 "RISC-V/gas: allow generating up to 176-bit >>>> instructions with .insn", I started to see some crashes while running >>>> "make check-gas". >>> >>> Hmm, I'm puzzled why things worked correctly for me. The extra size needed >>> is quite significant, so chances should be rather slim for things to work >>> correctly. >> >> I don't see this extra stack size as a problem so far. > > I guess my wording was misleading: I would have expected things for me to > be broken as well, simply because the amount of overrun would have > clobbered multiple stack slots (the more that some of my testing was on a > 32-bit host). Ah, that would make sense. Thanks, Tsukasa > > Jan >