On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 03:48:28PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > > > I *think* this isn't a problem for CONFIG_FORTIFY, since these will be > > replaced and checked separately -- but it still seems strange that you > > need to explicitly use __builtin_memcpy. > > > > Does this end up changing fortify coverage? > > Is fortify relevant here? Note that the whole file is compiled with > __NO_FORTIFY. Yeah, agreed. I think I was just curious if that got verified. I'm good with this. Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Kees Cook
