From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20845 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2012 09:36:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 20835 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2012 09:36:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:36:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA89adBb002868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 04:36:39 -0500 Received: from fweimer.str.redhat.com (oldenburg.str.redhat.com [10.33.200.60]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA89aaOQ024750 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 04:36:38 -0500 Message-ID: <509B7D24.5040201@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:36:00 -0000 From: Florian Weimer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caroline Tice CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Vtable pointer verification, gcc changes (patch 2 of 2) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00682.txt.bz2 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 issues, heap spraying, or something else? -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team