On 12/05/2017 10:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The most important change I've done in the testsuite was pointer-subtract-2.c
> used -fsanitize=address,pointer-subtract, but the function was actually
> doing pointer comparison. Guess that needs to be propagated upstream at
> some point. Another
On 12/05/2017 10:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:59:46PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 10/16/2017 10:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> All nits included in mainline review request I've just done:
>>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D38971
>>>
>>> Martin
>>
>> Hi.
>>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:59:46PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 10:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > All nits included in mainline review request I've just done:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D38971
> >
> > Martin
>
> Hi.
>
> There's updated version of patch where I added
On 10/16/2017 10:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hi.
>
> All nits included in mainline review request I've just done:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D38971
>
> Martin
Hi.
There's updated version of patch where I added new test-cases and it's rebased
with latest version of libsanitizer changes. This
Hi.
All nits included in mainline review request I've just done:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38971
Martin
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 03:38:28PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> --- a/libsanitizer/asan/asan_report.cc
> +++ b/libsanitizer/asan/asan_report.cc
> @@ -344,14 +344,70 @@ static INLINE void CheckForInvalidPointerPair(void *p1,
> void *p2) {
>if (!flags()->detect_invalid_pointer_pairs) return;
>
On 10/16/2017 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:57:59PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> Agree. Do you feel that it's right moment to trigger review process of
>> libsanitizer
>> changes?
>
> Yes. We don't have that much time left to get it through...
Good, I've
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 01:57:59PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Agree. Do you feel that it's right moment to trigger review process of
> libsanitizer
> changes?
Yes. We don't have that much time left to get it through...
> --- a/libsanitizer/asan/asan_report.cc
> +++
On 10/13/2017 03:13 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:53:50PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> @@ -3826,6 +3827,19 @@ pointer_diff (location_t loc, tree op0, tree op1)
>> pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
>> "pointer to a function used in subtraction");
>>
>> +
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:53:50PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> @@ -3826,6 +3827,19 @@ pointer_diff (location_t loc, tree op0, tree op1)
> pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
>"pointer to a function used in subtraction");
>
> + if (sanitize_flags_p (SANITIZE_POINTER_SUBTRACT))
>
On 10/13/2017 01:17 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:01:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> @@ -3826,6 +3827,18 @@ pointer_diff (location_t loc, tree op0, tree op1)
>> pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
>> "pointer to a function used in subtraction");
>>
>> +
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:01:37PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> @@ -3826,6 +3827,18 @@ pointer_diff (location_t loc, tree op0, tree op1)
> pedwarn (loc, OPT_Wpointer_arith,
>"pointer to a function used in subtraction");
>
> + if (sanitize_flags_p (SANITIZE_POINTER_SUBTRACT))
>
On 10/12/2017 01:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:13:56PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> + if (a1 == a2)
>> +return;
>> +
>> + uptr shadow_offset1, shadow_offset2;
>> + bool valid1, valid2;
>> + {
>> +ThreadRegistryLock l(());
>> +
>> +valid1 =
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:30:34PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> There's one false positive I've noticed:
>
> $ cat /tmp/ptr-cmp.c
> int
> __attribute__((noinline))
> foo(char *p1, char *p2)
> {
> if (p2 != 0 && p1 > p2)
> return 0;
>
> return 1;
> }
Guess that is an argument for
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:13:56PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> + if (a1 == a2)
> +return;
> +
> + uptr shadow_offset1, shadow_offset2;
> + bool valid1, valid2;
> + {
> +ThreadRegistryLock l(());
> +
> +valid1 = GetStackVariableBeginning(a1, _offset1);
> +valid2 =
Hi.
There's one false positive I've noticed:
$ cat /tmp/ptr-cmp.c
int
__attribute__((noinline))
foo(char *p1, char *p2)
{
if (p2 != 0 && p1 > p2)
return 0;
return 1;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return foo(argv[0], 0);
}
$ gcc /tmp/ptr-cmp.c
On 10/11/2017 04:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> std::swap(addr1, addr2); ? I don't see it used in any of libsanitizer
>>> though, so not sure if the corresponding STL header is included.
>>
>> They don't use it anywhere and I had
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:36:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > std::swap(addr1, addr2); ? I don't see it used in any of libsanitizer
> > though, so not sure if the corresponding STL header is included.
>
> They don't use it anywhere and I had some #include issues. That's why I did
> it
On 10/11/2017 09:37 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 07:55:44AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> Conceptually, these two instrumentations rely on address sanitization,
>>> not really sure if we should supporting them for kernel sanitization (but I
>>> bet it is just going to be too
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 07:55:44AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Conceptually, these two instrumentations rely on address sanitization,
> > not really sure if we should supporting them for kernel sanitization (but I
> > bet it is just going to be too costly for kernel).
> > So, we also need to
On 10/06/2017 03:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:46:05PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> + if (sanitize_comparison_p)
>> +{
>> + if (is_gimple_assign (s)
>> + && gimple_assign_rhs_class (s) == GIMPLE_BINARY_RHS
>> + &&
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:46:05PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> + if (sanitize_comparison_p)
> + {
> + if (is_gimple_assign (s)
> + && gimple_assign_rhs_class (s) == GIMPLE_BINARY_RHS
> + && POINTER_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (s)))
> +
22 matches
Mail list logo
