smd added inline comments.
================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/hwasan/hwasan.cpp:205
+ if (registers_frame && stack->trace && stack->size > 0) {
+ stack->trace++;
+ stack->size--;
----------------
fmayer wrote:
> fmayer wrote:
> > fmayer wrote:
> > > vitalybuka wrote:
> > > > maybe we should pop everything up to "pc" to avoid issues with nested
> > > > calls?
> > > >
> > > > For most users hwasan frames are not very useful. However if you work
> > > > on sanitizer, some frames can be a useful info. So I don't mind we just
> > > > relax test cases to accommodate this nesting.
> > > >
> > > > cc @smd
> > > This is probably for another patch though, right? This is already like
> > > this on the LHS.
> > nevermind. i accidentally had this left, sent
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D131279 for that.
> Sorry, please disregard everything I said here (incl the link). I confused
> myself where this was posted, and this is all nonsense.
@vitalybuka thanks for the reply.
>However if you work on sanitizer, some frames can be a useful info
From my experience most of the time while I'm working on sanitizers I spend in
gdb, so I don't actually care about what backtrace is being printed. So it
might be a good idea to avoid confusing regular hwasan user and skip printing
service hwasan frames.
Maybe we just could keep the current scheme, but get return address and frame
pointer in __hwasan_tag_mismatch4 like it was before? Something like:
```
void HwasanTagMismatch(uptr addr, uptr pc, uptr frame, uptr access_info, uptr
*registers_frame, size_t outsize) {
__hwasan::AccessInfo ai;
ai.is_store = access_info & 0x10;
ai.is_load = !ai.is_store;
ai.recover = access_info & 0x20;
ai.addr = addr;
if ((access_info & 0xf) == 0xf)
ai.size = outsize;
else
ai.size = 1 << (access_info & 0xf);
HandleTagMismatch(ai, pc, frame, nullptr, registers_frame);
}
...
void __hwasan_tag_mismat(uptr)__builtin_frame_address(0)ch4(uptr addr, uptr
access_info, uptr *registers_frame,
size_t outsize) {
uptr ra = (uptr)__builtin_return_address(0);
uptr fp = (uptr)__builtin_frame_address(0);
__hwasan::HwasanTagMismatch(addr, ra, fp, access_info, registers_frame,
outsize);
}
```
@fmayer
>LTO could conceivably inline this – in which case it would be one, right?
Yes, you're totally right.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103562/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103562
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
