On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:05:29PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 17:19 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:53:08PM +, Sam James wrote:
> > > With _FORTIFY_SOURCE >= 2 (enabled by -fhardened), vfprintf-chk-1.c's
> > > __vfprintf_chk ends up calling
On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 17:19 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:53:08PM +, Sam James wrote:
> > With _FORTIFY_SOURCE >= 2 (enabled by -fhardened), vfprintf-chk-1.c's
> > __vfprintf_chk ends up calling __vprintf_chk rather than vprintf.
Do we really want to support adding
On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:53:08PM +, Sam James wrote:
> With _FORTIFY_SOURCE >= 2 (enabled by -fhardened), vfprintf-chk-1.c's
> __vfprintf_chk ends up calling __vprintf_chk rather than vprintf.
s/__vprintf_chk/__vfprintf_chk/ above
>
> ```
> --- a/fortify.s
> +++ b/no-fortify.s
> @@ -8,27
Sam James writes:
> With _FORTIFY_SOURCE >= 2 (enabled by -fhardened), vfprintf-chk-1.c's
> __vfprintf_chk ends up calling __vprintf_chk rather than vprintf.
>
> ```
> --- a/fortify.s
> +++ b/no-fortify.s
> @@ -8,27 +8,28 @@
> [...]
> __vfprintf_chk:
> [...]
> movl$1,
With _FORTIFY_SOURCE >= 2 (enabled by -fhardened), vfprintf-chk-1.c's
__vfprintf_chk ends up calling __vprintf_chk rather than vprintf.
```
--- a/fortify.s
+++ b/no-fortify.s
@@ -8,27 +8,28 @@
[...]
__vfprintf_chk:
[...]
movl$1, should_optimize(%rip)
- jmp __vfprintf_chk
+
