From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: "Wilco Dijkstra" <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
"Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>,
"Kyrylo Tkachov" <Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com>,
"Szabolcs Nagy" <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,
"GCC Patches" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libgcc: Fix uninitialized RA signing on AArch64 [PR107678]
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 12:05:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpt7cxsx8iu.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y7/lyvtY/Xd9fe7C@tucnak> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Thu, 12 Jan 2023 11:49:46 +0100")
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:59:27AM +0000, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > On 1/10/23 19:12, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>> >> Anyway, the sooner this makes it into gcc trunk, the better, it breaks quite
>> >> a lot of stuff.
>> >
>> > Yep, please, we're also waiting for this patch for pushing to our gcc13 package.
>>
>> Well I'm waiting for an OK from a maintainer... I believe Jakub can approve it as well.
>
> Yes, I can, but am not sure it is appropriate. While I'm familiar with the
> unwinder, I'm not familiar with the pointer signing, and AArch64 has active
> maintainers, so I'd prefer to defer the review to them.
I think my main question is: how clean vs hacky is it to use
REG_UNDEFINED as effectively a toggle bit, rather than using
REG_UNDEFINED for its intended purpose?
In the review for earlier (May) patch, I'd asked whether it would
make sense to add a new enum. Would that be OK from a target-independent
point of view? E.g. maybe REG_TOGGLE_ON.
Although we don't AFAIK support using DW_CFA_undefined with RA signing,
the failure mode would be non-obvious: it would effectively toggle the
bit on.
It would be good to remove the definition of RA_SIGNED_BIT as well,
so that people don't accidentally use it in future.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-12 12:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-01 16:55 Wilco Dijkstra
2022-12-05 19:04 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-12-06 10:50 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2022-12-06 11:58 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2022-12-06 21:33 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-01-03 17:27 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2023-01-05 14:57 ` Szabolcs Nagy
2023-01-10 16:33 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2023-01-10 18:12 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-11 11:33 ` Martin Liška
2023-01-11 11:59 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2023-01-12 10:49 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-12 12:05 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2023-01-12 12:08 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-01-12 12:28 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-12 14:39 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-12 15:22 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-01-12 15:34 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-12 15:40 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-01-12 18:57 ` Jakub Jelinek
2023-01-16 13:04 ` Martin Liška
2023-01-17 19:49 ` Wilco Dijkstra
2023-01-17 20:43 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-01-18 12:49 ` Wilco Dijkstra
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=mpt7cxsx8iu.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com \
--cc=Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com \
--cc=Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=mliska@suse.cz \
/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).