Darksonn wrote:
This [has landed in
19.1.3](https://discourse.llvm.org/t/llvm-19-1-3-relased/82829). Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/104826
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
Darksonn wrote:
Rust already supports kCFI and I see no reason it can't also support this
scheme. We just need to be careful to introduce it in a good way that reduces
the risk of mismatched hashing strategies.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121
__
Darksonn wrote:
> AFAIK the use case for KCFI is very narrow: the x86-64 Linux kernel.
At the very least, it's also used in the arm64 Linux Kernel.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.or
Darksonn wrote:
Sami, I'm guessing you're mainly talking about rustc and clang needing to use
llvm versions that agree on the kCFI implementation in use? Or are there
additional things we need to do to make Rust support it / some fundamental
reason this approach can't work in Rust?
Either way
Darksonn wrote:
FYI cc: @bjorn3 @RalfJung @rcvalle
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/117121
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -254,6 +254,7 @@ FEATURE(is_trivially_constructible, LangOpts.CPlusPlus)
FEATURE(is_trivially_copyable, LangOpts.CPlusPlus)
FEATURE(is_union, LangOpts.CPlusPlus)
FEATURE(kcfi, LangOpts.Sanitize.has(SanitizerKind::KCFI))
+FEATURE(kcfi_x86_arity, LangOpts.Sanitize.has(Sanitize
