From: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:12:00 +0400
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Konstantin Serebryany > <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:40 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >>> From: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:39:52 +0400 >>> >>>> There are various other things that asan library does not support. >>> >>> I'm trying to understand why making the page size variable >>> is such a difficult endeavour. >> >> Maybe it's not *that* difficult. >> Looking at it carefully, the major problem I can see is that some >> other constants are defined based on this one. >> Give me a few days to resolve it... >> http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=128 > > http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193849 removes the > kPageSize constant in favor of a function call. > Please give it a try. > > BTW, libsanitizer now has a usable process to quickly pull the upstream > changes. > It should make it easier for us to iterate on platform-specific patches. So, with the hacks for unaligned accesses, Sparc seems to be working here. The only changes to libsantizier is to put __sparc__ checks where __powerpc__ checks exist in the unwind code. Are there any clear thoughts about what we should do in the end wrt. the stack ASAN alignment issues? Do we plan to 32-byte align the stack variables or similar? Otherwise we need to add some ugly code to do half-word/byte at a time accesses, as needed.
