-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
clang.llvm.org
-fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
1–10 of 129 posts
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#2I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way.
OpenBSD maybe? or a fork of CheriBSD?
macOS clang has supported -fbounds-safety for a while, but I"m not sure how extensively it is used.
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#3I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way. OpenBSD maybe? or a fork of CheriBSD? macOS clang has supported -fbounds-safety for a while, but I"m not sure how extensively it is used.
>I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way.
You first have to modify "all C code". It's not just a set and forget compiler flag.
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#4I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way. OpenBSD maybe? or a fork of CheriBSD? macOS clang has supported -fbounds-safety for a while, but I"m not sure how extensively it is used.
You need to annotate your program with indications of what variable tracks the size of the allocation. So, sure, but first work on the packages in the distro.
Note that corresponding checks for C++ library containers can be enabled without modifying the source. Google measured some very small overhead ([1] https://libcxx.llvm.org/Hardening.html
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#5I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way. OpenBSD maybe? or a fork of CheriBSD? macOS clang has supported -fbounds-safety for a while, but I"m not sure how extensively it is used.
Get gentoo, add this to CFLAGS and start fixing everything that breaks. Become a hero.
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#6I want an OS distro where all C code is compiled this way. OpenBSD maybe? or a fork of CheriBSD? macOS clang has supported -fbounds-safety for a while, but I"m not sure how extensively it is used.
does any distro uses clang? I thought all linux kernels were compiled using gcc.
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#7 template
struct Slice {
T* data = nullptr;
size_t size = nullptr;
T& operator[](size_t index) {
if (index >= size) crash_the_program();
return data[index];
}
};
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#8template struct Slice { T* data = nullptr; size_t size = nullptr; T& operator[](size_t index) { if (index >= size) crash_the_program(); return data[index]; } }; If you're considering this extension, just use C++ and 5 lines of standard, portable, no-weird-annotations code instead.
and if you write directly in assembly you don't even need a C++ compiler
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#9template struct Slice { T* data = nullptr; size_t size = nullptr; T& operator[](size_t index) { if (index >= size) crash_the_program(); return data[index]; } }; If you're considering this extension, just use C++ and 5 lines of standard, portable, no-weird-annotations code instead.
and if you write directly in assembly you don't even need a C++ compiler
That's an objectively correct statement, but I don't see how it makes sense as a response to my comment, as I'm advocating to use the more advanced feature-rich tool over the compiler-specific-hacks one.
Re: -fbounds-safety: Enforcing bounds safety for C
#10template struct Slice { T* data = nullptr; size_t size = nullptr; T& operator[](size_t index) { if (index >= size) crash_the_program(); return data[index]; } }; If you're considering this extension, just use C++ and 5 lines of standard, portable, no-weird-annotations code instead.
Even better, starting with C++26, and considered to be done with DR for previous versions, hardned runtimes now have a portable way to be configured across compilers, instead of each having their own approach.
However, you still need something like -fbounds-safety in C++, due to the copy-paste compatibility with C, and too many people writing Orthodox C++, C with Classes, Better C, kind of code, that we cannot get rid of.