From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
matz@gcc.gnu.org, sgayou@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3woousm8n.fsf@pepe.airs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <173817ca-0aa0-e1a2-6725-37e079ead545@redhat.com> (Nick Clifton's message of "Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:26:58 +0000")
Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> writes:
> I did consider just having a fixed limit, that the user cannot change, but
> I thought that this might be rejected by reviewers. (On the grounds that
> different limits are appropriate to different execution environments).
> Note - enabling or disabling the recursion limit is controlled by a separate
> feature of the proposed patch, ie the new DMGL_RECURSE_LIMIT flag in the
> options field of the cplus_demangleXXX() functions. But there is not enough
> room in the options field to also include a recursion limit value.
I think it would be fine to have a large fixed limit plus a flag to
disable the limit. I can't think of any reason why a program would want
to change the limit unless it has complete trust in the symbols it is
demangling, and in that case it may as well simply disable the limit.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-30 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-30 8:38 Nick Clifton
2018-11-30 8:42 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-11-30 10:27 ` Nick Clifton
2018-11-30 13:46 ` Michael Matz
2018-11-30 14:57 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2018-12-02 0:49 ` Cary Coutant
2018-12-03 14:53 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-03 22:00 ` Joseph Myers
2018-11-30 13:56 ` Ian Lance Taylor [this message]
2018-11-30 14:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-11-30 17:41 ` RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v3] Nick Clifton
2018-11-30 17:49 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-11-30 18:19 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-03 10:28 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-03 14:45 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-03 18:49 ` Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches
2018-12-04 14:00 ` RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v4] Nick Clifton
2018-12-04 15:02 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-04 16:57 ` RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v5] Nick Clifton
2018-12-04 17:08 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-06 11:12 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-06 18:04 ` Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches
2018-12-07 16:17 ` H.J. Lu
2018-12-07 16:25 ` [PATCH] Set DEMANGLE_RECURSION_LIMIT to 1536 H.J. Lu
2018-12-10 14:52 ` Michael Matz
2018-12-10 15:10 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-10 15:34 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-11 0:33 ` Jeff Law
2018-12-11 6:58 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-11 11:05 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-11 14:26 ` Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches
2018-12-11 15:07 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-11 10:34 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-10 15:12 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-10 15:18 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-10 15:26 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-10 15:35 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-10 18:20 ` Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches
2018-12-10 18:55 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-10 23:47 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-10 15:18 ` David Malcolm
2018-12-10 15:31 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-06 16:14 ` RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler [v5] Jason Merrill
2018-12-06 21:22 ` RFC: libiberty PATCH to disable demangling of ancient mangling schemes Jason Merrill
2018-12-07 10:27 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-07 10:40 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-12-07 16:11 ` Pedro Alves
2018-12-07 17:49 ` Tom Tromey
2018-12-07 21:00 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-14 22:39 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-16 4:50 ` Simon Marchi
2018-12-07 16:28 ` Nick Clifton
2018-12-07 11:37 ` Richard Biener
2018-12-07 15:49 ` Jason Merrill
2018-12-10 1:04 ` Eric Gallager
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-11-29 15:01 RFA/RFC: Add stack recursion limit to libiberty's demangler Nick Clifton
2018-11-29 17:08 ` Scott Gayou
2018-11-30 8:42 ` Nick Clifton
2018-11-29 18:20 ` Pedro Alves
2018-11-29 22:18 ` Ian Lance Taylor
[not found] ` <87h8fza6fh.fsf@tromey.com>
[not found] ` <43e6c9e6-8249-bf56-aed8-90d0f771c567@redhat.com>
2018-11-30 11:58 ` Pedro Alves
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=m3woousm8n.fsf@pepe.airs.com \
--to=ian@airs.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=matz@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=sgayou@redhat.com \
/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).