On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, at 18:14, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 05:18:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I think more production systems will have CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS enabled > (e.g. Ubuntu has had it enabled for more than a year now) than GCOV, > so I'd prefer we maintain all*config coverage for the more commonly > used config. Fair enough, I can send that as v2, but let's see what the others think first. >> config CC_HAS_UBSAN_BOUNDS_STRICT >> def_bool $(cc-option,-fsanitize=bounds-strict) >> + # work around https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110074 >> + depends on GCC_VERSION > 140000 || !GCOV_PROFILE_ALL >> help >> The -fsanitize=bounds-strict option is only available on GCC, >> but uses the more strict handling of arrays that includes knowledge > > Alternatively, how about falling back to -fsanitize=bounds instead, as > that (which has less coverage) wasn't triggering the stack frame > warnings? > > i.e. fall back through these: > -fsanitize=array-bounds (Clang) > -fsanitize=bounds-strict (!GCOV || bug fixed in GCC) > -fsanitize=bounds >From what I can tell, -fsanitize=bounds has the same problem as -fsanitize=bounds-strict, so that would not help. Arnd
