From: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Honor -fstrict-flex-arrays= in -fsanitize=bounds [PR108894]
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 19:19:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9B0A086B-0C48-4038-AD6F-BD18DFBCAEF3@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y/4+oDHCAgoXWkHf@tucnak>
> On Feb 28, 2023, at 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 04:13:28PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 2023, at 3:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>> I think -fstrict-flex-arrays* options can be considered as language
>>> mode changing options, by default flexible member-like arrays are
>>> handled like flexible arrays, but that option can change the set of
>>> the arrays which are treated like that. So, -fsanitize=bounds should
>>> change with that on what is considered acceptable and what isn't.
>>> While -fsanitize=bounds-strict should reject them all always to
>>> continue previous behavior.
>>
>>
>> As my understanding, without your current patch, the current -fsanitize=bounds-strict behaves like -fstrict-flex-arrays=2, i.e:
>> it treats:
>> [], [0] as flexible array members;
>> but
>> [1], [4] as regular arrays
>
> Yes, but not because it would be an intention, but because of a bug
> it actually never instrumented [0] arrays.
Understood.
So, your patch fixed this bug, and then [0] arrays are instrumented by default with this patch.
> Well, it would complain about
> struct S { int a; int b[0]; int c; } s;
> ... &s.b[1] ...
> for C++, but not for C.
A little confused here: [0] arrays were instrumented by default for C++ if it’s not a trailing array, but not for C?
>
>> Then with your current patch, [0] will NOT be treated as flexible array members by default anymore, so, the -fsanitize=bounds-strict will
>> treats:
>> [] as flexible array members;
>> but
>> [0], [1], [4] as regular arrays
>> The same behavior as -fstrict-flex-arrays=3.
>>
>> Therefore, -fsanitize=bounds-strict already implies -fstrict-flex-arrays=3.
>
> No. -fsanitize=bounds-strict doesn't imply anything for
> flag_strict_flex_arrays, it for the bounds sanitization decisions
> behaves as if -fstrict-flex-arrays=3.
Yes, that was what I meant. -:)
>
>> For [0] arrays, why C++ and C represent with different IR?
>
> I think it is a historic difference that could take quite a big amount of
> work to get rid of (and the question is what is better), and even after that
> work there would be still big chances of regressions.
Okay, I see… (this is really a confusion situation…) but anyway…
Thanks.
Qing
>
> Jakub
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-28 19:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-28 8:26 Jakub Jelinek
2023-02-28 9:02 ` Richard Biener
2023-02-28 9:11 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-02-28 16:13 ` Qing Zhao
2023-02-28 17:49 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-02-28 19:19 ` Qing Zhao [this message]
2023-02-28 21:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-01 9:58 ` [committed] ubsan: Add another testcase for [0] array in the middle of struct [PR108894] Jakub Jelinek
2023-03-01 16:30 ` [PATCH] ubsan: Honor -fstrict-flex-arrays= in -fsanitize=bounds [PR108894] Qing Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9B0A086B-0C48-4038-AD6F-BD18DFBCAEF3@oracle.com \
--to=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).