Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" . >> > >> > Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ? >> >> >> Nice! >> >> We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wish Wu wrote: > Hi > > I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" . > > Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ? Nice! We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing that use the comparison tracing. We

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Wish Wu wrote: > Hi > > In fact, under linux with "return address" and file "/proc/self/maps", > we can give unique id for every comparison. Yes, it's doable. But you expressed worries about performance hit of merging callbacks for different

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Hi > > I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" . > > Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ? Nice! We are currently working on

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 9:21 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote: > Hi > > Implementing __sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp[1248]_const is OK . > And I will try to find some determinate way to judge this comparison is for > loop or not. > Because all the loops(for() or while()) seem to be transformed

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 11:53 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote: > Hi all > Is it worth adding my codes to gcc ? Are there some steps I need to do ? > Could somebody tell me the progress ? FYI, we've mailed a Linux kernel change that uses this instrumentation:

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

Some stats from kernel build for number of trace_cmp callbacks: gcc non-const: 38051 const: 272726 total: 310777 clang: non-const: 45944 const: 266299 total: 312243 The total is quite close. Gcc seems to emit more const callbacks, which is good. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Vyukov

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote: > Hi > The trace-div and trace-gep options seems be used to evaluate corpus > to trigger specific kind of bugs. And they don't have strong effect to > coverage. > > The trace-pc-guard is useful, but it may be much more complex

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:38:17PM +0800, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote: >> Hi Jeff >> >> I have signed the copyright assignment, and used the name 'Wish Wu' . >> Should I send you a copy of my assignment ? >> >> The attachment is my new

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control >> structures. So that would be: >> _4 = x_8(D) == 98; >> For example, result of the

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control >>>

Re: Add support to trace comparison instructions and switch statements

On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:38 PM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote: > Hi > I will update the patch according to your requirements, and with some my > suggestions. > It will take me one or two days. Thanks! No hurry, just wanted to make sure you still want to pursue this. > Wish Wu > >

Re: [PATCH] tsan: Add optional support for distinguishing volatiles

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:55 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > FWIW this is: > > > > Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov > > > > We just landed a similar change to llvm: > >

Re: [PATCH] tsan: Add optional support for distinguishing volatiles

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:43 PM Marco Elver wrote: > > Add support to optionally emit different instrumentation for accesses to > volatile variables. While the default TSAN runtime likely will never > require this feature, other runtimes for different environments that > have subtly different

Re: [PATCH] tsan: Add optional support for distinguishing volatiles

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:48 PM Marco Elver wrote: > > Hello, Jakub, > > > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 16:58, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:55 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > > > FWIW this