This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:05:04PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 03:53:04PM +0200, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 02:44:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > On 05/16/2014 02:37 PM, Will Newton wrote:
> > > 
> > > >I'm curious as to why you want to get rid of alloca?
> > > 
> > > There's no explicit checking if the stack has room for the requested
> > > size.  It is not always clear if the implied length check through
> > > the explicit guard page prevents deliberate misuse of such alloca
> > > failures for nefarious purposes.  So we risk having crashes (already
> > > quite bad) and often cannot rule out any further security impact
> > > beyond the crash (worse).
> > > 
> > > Same thing applies to VLAs on the stack, obviously.
> > > 
> > > GCC could provide fairly cheap instrumentation (both in terms of
> > > code size and execution speed) that turns alloca failures (and
> > > too-large VLas) into reliable crashes, but that GCC feature is
> > > currently somewhat broken and not usable at all.
> > > 
> > All you need is reliable way to get stack boundaries. I proposed to add
> > these some time ago. It would make alloca failures reliable without
> > need of gcc support.
> The cost of a function call to look up the current stack boundaries
> (or a TLS access to get that info on some archs where TLS access is
> expensive) defeats much of the purpose of using alloca.
Oh really? It does not follow malloc also needs tls so you will always
be faster. Also you could avoid that check most times by checking
request if you crosses page boundary or creating lookup table which page 
belongs to which tread.
> Moreover, turning alloca failures into "reliable crashes" is not a
> solution. If an operation requires allocation which could fail, it
> must be able to back out whatever work it already did and report
> failure. Crashing is not an acceptable implementation.
No, when it is third party codebase and it does not want to rewrite
existing code do you have a better proposal?

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]