On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 07:50:38PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. Ah, did something change with GCOV? This (bounds vs bounds-strict) is the only recent change to CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS... -- Kees Cook
