On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >From 4d2e0b1e87b08ec21fd82144f00d364687030706 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Martin Liska
> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:57:56 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] Add missing store in emission of asan_stack_free.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2020-05
On 6/10/20 12:08 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
- store_by_pieces (shadow_mem, sz, builtin_memset_read_str, &c,
-BITS_PER_UNIT, true, RETURN_BEGIN);
+ {
+ /* Emit:
+ memset(ShadowBase
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> - store_by_pieces (shadow_mem, sz, builtin_memset_read_str, &c,
> - BITS_PER_UNIT, true, RETURN_BEGIN);
> + {
> + /* Emit:
> +memset(ShadowBase, kAsanStackAfterReturnMagic, ShadowSize);
>
On 6/10/20 10:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
E.g. we just shouldn't reuse
MEMs (even after adjusting them) from different indirection levels because
we risk some attributes (alias set, MEM_EXPR, whatever else) will stay
around from the different indirection level.
All right, what about the updated
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:24:59AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > This doesn't look correct to me.
> > > I'd think the first adjust_address should be
> > > mem = adjust_address (mem, ptr_mode, offset);
> > > which will give you a MEM with ptr_mode which has SavedFlagPtr(FakeStack)
> > > add
On 6/1/20 3:18 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/1/20 2:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
--- a/gcc/asan.c
+++ b/gcc/asan.c
@@ -1598,8 +1598,24 @@ asan_emit_stack_protection (rtx base, rtx pbase,
unsigned int alignb,
if (use_after_retu
On 6/1/20 2:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
--- a/gcc/asan.c
+++ b/gcc/asan.c
@@ -1598,8 +1598,24 @@ asan_emit_stack_protection (rtx base, rtx pbase,
unsigned int alignb,
if (use_after_return_class < 5
&& can_store_by_p
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> --- a/gcc/asan.c
> +++ b/gcc/asan.c
> @@ -1598,8 +1598,24 @@ asan_emit_stack_protection (rtx base, rtx pbase,
> unsigned int alignb,
>if (use_after_return_class < 5
> && can_store_by_pieces (sz, builtin_memset_read_str
On 5/20/20 1:03 PM, Franz Sirl wrote:
Am 2020-05-19 um 21:05 schrieb Martin Liška:
Hi.
We make direct emission for asan_emit_stack_protection for smaller stacks.
That's fine but we're missing the piece that marks the stack as released
and we run out of pre-allocated stacks. I also included some
Am 2020-05-19 um 21:05 schrieb Martin Liška:
Hi.
We make direct emission for asan_emit_stack_protection for smaller stacks.
That's fine but we're missing the piece that marks the stack as released
and we run out of pre-allocated stacks. I also included some stack-related
constants that were used
10 matches
Mail list logo
