Hi Jonas, First of all, why would you want to do such thing? Do you have a particular use case?
--kcc On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Jonas Wagner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi AddressSanitizer developers, > I’d like to selectively disable AddressSanitizer's > poisoning/quarantine/filling for some memory allocations. I know I can > exclude particular functions from being transformed using > __attribute__((no_sanitize_address)). Is this also possible for particular > memory allocations? > > Otherwise, I've a few ideas for how this could be implemented: > > 1. Create a special heap area where the “unsafe” objects reside. The > low level allocator for this region would not do any poisoning. > 2. Introduce a way to tell the ASan allocator that an allocation > should come from the unsafe region (I’m not sure how to do this… have a > global flag for each thread, maybe?). > 3. When allocating from the unsafe region, ASan would set the state in > the object’s header to the new “UNSAFE” value, instead of “ALLOCATED”. It > would otherwise behave as if heap poisoning were disabled. > 4. When freeing an object, we would check the state in the chunk > header. Unsafe objects would bypass the quarantine queue and be returned to > the unsafe allocator directly. > > What are your thoughts about this? Is there a simpler way to do this? > > Looking forward to your thoughts! Best regards, > Jonas > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "address-sanitizer" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "address-sanitizer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
