From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id DDF9C3858C2C; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:46:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DDF9C3858C2C
From: "eyalroz1 at gmx dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBzYW5pdGl6ZXIvMTA1MDI5XSBzYW5pdGl6ZXJfaW50ZXJu?=
 =?UTF-8?B?YWxfZGVmcy5oOjI1NDo3MjogZXJyb3I6IHNpemUgb2YgYXJyYXkg4oCYYXNz?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZXJ0aW9uX2ZhaWxlZF9fMTEzNeKAmSBpcyBuZWdhdGl2ZQ==?=
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:46:09 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: build
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: eyalroz1 at gmx dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105029-4-u1kKagSpD3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105029-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105029-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 20:46:10 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105029

--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg <eyalroz1 at gmx dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> You could backport the fix if you want.

I'd like to trouble you for a little more guidance, so that I can apply the=
 fix
to 6.5.0.

Now, I understand the fix does two things:

1. Change the conditions under which a size-and-type check is performed
2. Change the structure of __sanitizer_ipc_perm for various platforms.

However, this is difficult to back-port when I don't understand what the ac=
tual
problem was.

The layout, and types, of the __sanitizer_ipc_perm structure is different in
6.5.0 and in 9.3.0, so that it's not clear what fields to change, into what,
and for what platforms/combination of flags. The CHECK_SIZE_AND_TYPE - I can
use the same condition as in the patched version, but - are they the
appropriate ones for 6.5.0?

Help out a poor developer who's trying to maintain compatibility of his lib=
rary
with older systems/compilers.=