[PATCH][version 3]add -ftrivial-auto-var-init and variable attribute "uninitialized" to gcc

Qing Zhao qing.zhao@oracle.com
Tue Jun 22 21:31:58 GMT 2021


Now, I believe that we agreed on the following:

For this current patch:

1. Use byte-repeatable pattern for pattern-initialization;
2. Use one pattern for all types;
3. Use “0xFE” for the byte pattern value.

Possible future improvement:

1. Type specific patterns if needed;
2. User-specified pattern if needed; (add a new option for user to change the patterns).
3. Make the code generation part a target hook if needed.

Let me know if I miss anything.



> On Jun 22, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 09:25:57AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>> Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> writes:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:39:45PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>> So, if “pattern value” is “0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF”, then it’s a valid canonical virtual memory address.  However, for most OS, “0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF” should be not in user space.
>>>>> My question is, is “0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF” good for pointer? Or “0xAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” better?
>>>> I think 0xFF repeating is fine for this version. Everything else is a
>>>> "nice to have" for the pattern-init, IMO. :)
>>> Sorry to be awkward, but 0xFF seems worse than 0xAA to me.
>>> For integer types, all values are valid representations, and we're
>>> relying on the pattern being “obviously” wrong in context.  0xAAAA…
>>> is unlikely to be a correct integer but 0xFFFF… would instead be a
>>> “nice” -1.  It would be difficult to tell in a debugger that a -1
>>> came from pattern init rather than a deliberate choice.
>> I can live with 0xAA. On x86_64, this puts it nicely in the middle of
>> the middle of the non-canonical space:
>> 0x800000000000 - 0xffff7fffffffffff
>> The only trouble is with 32-bit, where the value 0xAAAAAAAA is a
>> legitimate allocatable userspace address. If we want some kind-of middle
>> ground, how about 0xFE? That'll be non-canonical on x86_64, and at the
>> high end of the i386 kernel address space.
> Sounds good to me FWIW.  That'd give float -1.694739530317379e+38
> (suspiciously big even for astrophysics, I hope!) and would still
> look unusual in an integer context.
>>> I agree that, all other things being equal, it would be nice to use NaNs
>>> for floats.  But relying on wrong numerical values for floats doesn't
>>> seem worse than doing that for integers.
>>> 0xAA… for float is (if I've got this right) -3.0316488252093987e-13,
>>> which admittedly doesn't stand out as wrong.  But I'm not sure we
>>> should sacrifice integer debugging for float debugging here.
>> In some future version type-specific patterns would be a nice improvement,
>> but I don't want that to block getting the zero-init portion landed. :)
> Yeah.
> Thanks,
> Richard

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list