On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Christian Holler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > > we're currently shipping an llvm-symbolizer binary next to the firefox > "shipping" as in "shipping to the testing farm" or as in "shipping to early adopters who run asan-ified firefox as their main browser" If the latter -- please don't. llvm-symbolizer deals with extremely complicated data format (DWARF) and is likely to have horrible security bugs. If the former, I would simply suggest to have llvm-symbolizer in PATH on the testing machines (or some such) > binary in our Firefox+ASan tarball. Would it make sense for the asan-rt > to try and locate llvm-symbolizer also when it is not on PATH but in the > same directory as the running binary and executable? I realize we could > use ASan options or ASAN_SYMBOLIZER_PATH but that again requires custom > wrappers or early C code that modifies the default ASan options and I > figured this use case might not be so unusual. The target systems won't > have llvm-symbolizer installed. > > > Thanks, > > Chris > > -- > 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.
