On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:36:49AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > That said, this libcall optimization/transformation (sprintf->stpcpy) > does look useful to me. Kees, do you have thoughts on me providing > the implementation without exposing it in a header vs using > -fno-builtin-stpcpy? (I would need to add the missing EXPORT_SYMBOL, > as pointed out by 0day bot and on the github thread). I don't care > either way; I'd just like your input before sending a V+1. Maybe > better to just not implement it and never implement it? I think I would ultimately prefer -fno-builtin-stpcpy, but for now, sure, an implementation without a header (and a biiig comment above it detailing why and a reference to the bug) would be fine by me. -- Kees Cook
