From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [37.24.231.21])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFACB3959C2F
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:16:38 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org CFACB3959C2F
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deneb.enyo.de
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fw@deneb.enyo.de
Received: from [172.17.203.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de)
 by albireo.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 id 1jTXag-0000Vr-J7; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:16:30 +0000
Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <fw@deneb.enyo.de>)
 id 1jTXZ5-0000of-L0; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:14:51 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: "zhuyan \(M\)" <zhuyan34@huawei.com>,
 "libc-alpha\@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] memcpy: use bhs/bls instead of bge/blt [BZ #25620]
References: <95923e664fc9426c9c121efeaa69268c@huawei.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004142220180.15813@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <877dy8rjlq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004212126110.12411@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:14:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2004212126110.12411@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 (Joseph Myers's message of "Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:27:25 +0000")
Message-ID: <87ftcn48j8.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:16:40 -0000

* Joseph Myers:

> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Joseph Myers:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, zhuyan (M) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In ARMv7, the memcpy() implementation allows for program execution to 
>> >> continue in scenarios where a segmentation fault or crash should have 
>> >> occurred. The dangers occur in that subsequent execution and iterations 
>> >> of this code will be executed with this corrupted data.
>> >> 
>> >> Such as, we use 'memcpy' copy 0x80000000 byte to buffer(The buffer size 
>> >> is 100 bytes), it didn't crash.
>> >
>> > This patch includes an architecture-specific test, specific to memcpy.  
>> > My understanding of Wilco's request in bug 25620 was for an 
>> > architecture-independent test or tests, covering all string functions with 
>> > such large arguments, so we can ensure we're consistent across 
>> > architectures.
>> 
>> Sure, that would be great, but can we make this independent of this
>> fix, please?
>
> I think the minimum for this fix should be an architecture-independent 
> test for memcpy (but not other string functions, and not necessarily 
> testing all IFUNC variants of memcpy).

Fair enough.  I'll try to write one using the RAM compression feature
I added.  But I can't get a 32-bit Arm machine from the labs at work
right now, and it may be a while until I get a device delivered, so it
will be at least a few days more until I have a test that's been
confirmed to reproduce the bug.