Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-06-24 Thread Martin Liška
PING^2 On 6/10/20 10:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote: PING^1 On 5/25/20 3:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/21/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 6/10/20 2:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote: PING^1 The exclusion changes are just what I was suggesting, thanks. Martin On 5/25/20 3:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/21/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know 

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Liška
PING^1 On 5/25/20 3:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/21/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion mechanism isn't general enough to handle but this seems 

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-25 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/21/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion mechanism isn't general enough to handle but this seems simple enough that it should work.  Unless I'm 

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-25 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:27 AM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5/22/20 12:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:09 PM Martin Liška wrote: > >> > >> On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > >>> wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-25 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/22/20 12:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:09 PM Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The optimize

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-22 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:09 PM Martin Liška wrote: > > On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches > > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The optimize attribute is used to

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion mechanism isn't general enough to handle but this seems simple enough that it should work.  Unless I'm missing something that makes it not

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion mechanism isn't general enough to handle but this seems simple enough that it should work.  Unless I'm missing something that makes it not feasible I would suggest to use it. Hi

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/18/20 5:56 PM, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote: * Michael Matz: So does -fcf-protection. -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not work for me at all for some reason, the frame pointer is always missing? Not for me: I see. I didn't know that -fno-omit-frame-pointer only applies to

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/18/20 1:49 PM, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The optimize attribute is used to specify that a function is to be compiled with different optimization options than

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches
On 5/18/20 4:37 AM, Martin Liška wrote: Hi. The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already have stack_protect attribute (used

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Andreas Schwab
On Mai 18 2020, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote: > * Michael Matz: > >>> So does -fcf-protection. -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not work for me at >>> all for some reason, the frame pointer is always missing? >> >> Not for me: > > I see. I didn't know that -fno-omit-frame-pointer only

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Matz
Hello, On Mon, 18 May 2020, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Michael Matz: > > >> So does -fcf-protection. -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not work for me at > >> all for some reason, the frame pointer is always missing? > > > > Not for me: > > I see. I didn't know that -fno-omit-frame-pointer only

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches
* Michael Matz: >> So does -fcf-protection. -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not work for me at >> all for some reason, the frame pointer is always missing? > > Not for me: I see. I didn't know that -fno-omit-frame-pointer only applies to non-leaf functions. For them, the behavior I see matches

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Matz
Hello, On Mon, 18 May 2020, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> In glibc, we already have this: > >> > >> /* Used to disable stack protection in sensitive places, like ifunc > >>resolvers and early static TLS init. */ > >> #ifdef HAVE_CC_NO_STACK_PROTECTOR > >> # define inhibit_stack_protector \ >

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches
* Michael Matz: > Hello, > > On Mon, 18 May 2020, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> > The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested >> > from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. >> > Unlike Clang, I chose to name it

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Michael Matz
Hello, On Mon, 18 May 2020, Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches wrote: > > The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested > > from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. > > Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already > >

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:10 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > The optimize attribute is used to specify that a function is to be > > > compiled > > > with different optimization options than specified on the command

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc-patches
* Martin Liška: > The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested > from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. > Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already > have stack_protect attribute (used with

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:03:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > The optimize attribute is used to specify that a function is to be compiled > > with different optimization options than specified on the command line. > > ``` > > > > It's pretty clear about the command line arguments (that are

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 01:00:01PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 5/18/20 12:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:37:58PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > > > The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested > > > from kernel folks and is direct equivalent

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Martin Liška
On 5/18/20 12:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:37:58PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. Unlike Clang, I chose to name it

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

2020-05-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:37:58PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > The patch adds new no_stack_protect attribute. The change is requested > from kernel folks and is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. > Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already > have