On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:53:01 -0700 Kees Cook wrote: > As we continue to narrow the scope of what the FORTIFY memcpy() will > accept and build alternative APIs that give the compiler appropriate > visibility into more complex memcpy scenarios, there is a need for > "unfortified" memcpy use in rare cases where combinations of compiler > behaviors, source code layout, etc, result in cases where the stricter > memcpy checks need to be bypassed until appropriate solutions can be > developed (i.e. fix compiler bugs, code refactoring, new API, etc). The > intention is for this to be used only if there's no other reasonable > solution, for its use to include a justification that can be used > to assess future solutions, and for it to be temporary. > > Example usage included, based on analysis and discussion from: > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CANn89iLS_2cshtuXPyNUGDPaic=sJiYfvTb_wNLgWrZRyBxZ_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Saeed, ack for taking this in directly? Or do you prefer to take this plus Eric's last BIG TCP patch via your tree?
