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 7E5253858D33; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:04:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7E5253858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681290277;
	bh=IyNYLAHz5MctsLEnQoeUSO1M3/vHDuAYff4OamNQvic=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=gw/I9LFJu4//5nRfdzFsRvejYvviVxAQkkMrNFpFsStjW1VKwIwWwWVPnbswV/UWP
	 hWTEJPgwrsgro6DsscxgaAhPRNRYLYFfZ9lQlX9MT1KACHQEAW0tVJ5wmoVg4JEEzt
	 qMRGuUoLjCZAOI2bEe3cFM5lH1rKxL4+KEy9T6Do=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/109446] Possible destination array overflow without
 diagnosis in memcpy
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:04:36 +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: 8.4.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-109446-4-8AWiTgqNNY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109446-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109446-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109446

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> > > not sure if we should prevent all of those transforms.  But the quest=
ion is
> > > why ASAN doesn't instrument the generated aggregate copy?  Maybe beca=
use
> > > in C/C++ you cannot write an aggregate array copy?
> >=20
> > We do instrument those.  But only instrument them by checking the first=
 and
> > last byte
> > of the copy, not all bytes in between (because that would be for inline
> > checking too large - we'd need to emit inline a loop over those bytes).
>=20
> OK, that's lack of an appropriate API then?  But still the first and last
> byte should be sufficient to detect the problem (but maybe I'm missing
> something here).

Maybe it just happens the end to be on the stack of the inner most function=
 so
it just happens that it is an variable address still.=