From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9858 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2012 14:44:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 9813 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2012 14:44:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,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; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:44:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2EijnI009058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:44:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-40.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.40]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA2Eiiie004205 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 10:44:45 -0400 Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 937BC2C0104; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:44:43 +0100 (CET) From: Dodji Seketeli To: Konstantin Serebryany Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, dnovillo@google.com, jakub@redhat.com, wmi@google.com, davidxl@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] Implement protection of stack variables References: <1351799566-31447-1-git-send-email-dodji@redhat.com> <1351799566-31447-7-git-send-email-dodji@redhat.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Konstantin Serebryany's message of "Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:12:43 +0400") Message-ID: <871ugc9i90.fsf@redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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/msg00191.txt.bz2 Konstantin Serebryany writes: >> [A cultural question I've kept asking myself is Why has address >> sanitizer authors called these red zones (LEFT, MIDDLE, RIGHT) >> instead of e.g, (BOTTOM, MIDDLE, TOP). Maybe they can step up and >> educate me so that I get less confused in the future. :-)] >> > > Ha! Good question. I guess that's related to the way we explained it in the > paper, > where the chunk of memory was typeset horizontally to save space. Ah, which paper? The only 'paper' I have seen is the pdf of you talk you gave at GNU Cauldron this summer[1] and it didn't explain the stack protection scheme in those terms or detail. [1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kcc.pdf > Btw, are we still using -fasan option, or did we change it to > -faddress-sanitizer? The later. As I said in my reply to David, I am going to resubmit a patch that exposes that change as part of the initial import patch of the series. Cheers. -- Dodji