Re: [PATCH 06/82] overflow: Reintroduce signed and unsigned overflow sanitizers

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:45 AM Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes. We removed this bad behavior by using -fno-strict-overflow, and we will want to keep it enabled.

Yeah, I only meant that the wording of the commit seems to say there
is something special about the "overflowing behavior", i.e. I was
expecting just UB with the usual implications, but given the extra
text in the parenthesis, I wondered while reading it if there was
something different/special going on.

> The stack usage is separate. (This may even be fixed in modern Clang; this comes from the original version of this Kconfig.) The not booting part is separate and has not been tracked down yet.

I see. Thanks! In any case, if the sentence means only 32-bit x86,
users couldn't still see it. But since this was already in the revert
now that I take a look, I guess ignore this :)

> I wondered the same -- they were this way when they were removed, so I just restored them as they were. :)

Makes sense :)

Cheers,
Miguel