=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `sanitizer-ppc64le-linux`
running on `ppc64le-sanitizer` while building `clang,llvm` at step 2 "annotate".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builde
https://github.com/NagyDonat closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
NagyDonat wrote:
Now that I think about it, w
=?utf-8?q?Donát?= Nagy
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
https://github.com/NagyDonat edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix -verify %s
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix,optin.portability
-DPORTAB
https://github.com/NagyDonat updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
From 36821708145587553f13df8648920f281b318240 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Don=C3=A1t=20Nagy?=
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:50:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [analyzer] Delete alpha.security.MallocOver
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
NagyDonat wrote:
Is it possible to write a "t
haoNoQ wrote:
> Instead of actually tracking the symbolic values and the known constraints on
> them, this checker blindly gropes the AST and uses heuristics like "this
> variable was seen in a comparison operator expression that is not a loop
> condition, so it's probably not too large" (whic
@@ -1039,10 +1039,6 @@ def ArrayBoundCheckerV2 : Checker<"ArrayBoundV2">,
HelpText<"Warn about buffer overflows (newer checker)">,
Documentation;
-def MallocOverflowSecurityChecker : Checker<"MallocOverflow">,
haoNoQ wrote:
We could keep this for a while
https://github.com/haoNoQ approved this pull request.
I too think this checker can be safely deleted. To the best of my knowledge,
nobody is using it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm
@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix -verify %s
-// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-unknown
-analyzer-checker=alpha.security.MallocOverflow,unix,optin.portability
-DPORTAB
https://github.com/haoNoQ edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/steakhal approved this pull request.
Nuke it!
Please note this in the release notes stating the reason and what else they
could use instead (if exists).
Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
___
cfe-commits mail
vabridgers wrote:
I agree with Donat's proposal to remove this check, especially if the taint
checker can be used to detect a "tainted" argument to an equivalent malloc()
function. We see many false positives with the approach used in this checker to
the extent that devs disable this checker.
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-static-analyzer-1
Author: Donát Nagy (NagyDonat)
Changes
...because it is too noisy to be useful right now, and its architecture is
terrible, so it can't act a starting point of future development.
The main problem with this checker is that it tr
https://github.com/NagyDonat created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/103059
...because it is too noisy to be useful right now, and its architecture is
terrible, so it can't act a starting point of future development.
The main problem with this checker is that it tries to do (or at le
20 matches
Mail list logo
