On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 11:16:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Practically speaking this might be a bit painful, because we've got > > several different variations of this all due to all the things like > > our debugging versions (see <linux/fortify-string.h> for example), so > > some of our code is this crazy jungle of "with this config, use this > > wrapper". > > I've just had a look at that code, and I don't want to touch it with a > 10 foot pole. If someone else to get his hands dirty... Heh. Yes, fortify-string.h is a twisty maze. I've tried to keep it as regular as possible, but I admit it is weird. On my list is to split compile-time from run-time logic (as suggested by Linus a while back), but I've worried it would end up spilling some of the ugly back into string.h, which should probably not happen. As such, I've tried to keep it all contained in fortify-string.h. Regardless, I think I'd rather avoid yet more special cases in the fortify code, so I'd like to avoid using transparent union if we can. It seems like -funsigned-char and associated fixes will be sufficient, though, yes? -- Kees Cook
