On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 08:26:24PM +0300, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:06 PM, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer
> wrote:
> > You answered your own question about user space :)
>
> Yeah, I hoped someone would rush to overpersuade me...
While in C unaligned accesses are UB, I
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:06 PM, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via address-sanitizer
wrote:
> You answered your own question about user space :)
Yeah, I hoped someone would rush to overpersuade me...
-Y
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 05:04 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in
k
On 12/04/2014 05:04 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in
kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Handle 8+ byte acc
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in
>> kernel.
>>
>> If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
>> Handle 8+ byte accesses as 1/2/4 accesses. No cha
On 12/04/2014 03:47 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Handle 8+ byte accesses as 1/2/4 accesses. No changes to 1/2/4 access handling.
Currently when we allocate, say, 17-by
+address-sanitizer
Please don't hurry with it.
Do you have any numbers on how frequent are unaligned accesses in
kernel? Is it worth addressing at this cost?
size_in_bytes = -1 instrumentation is too slow to be the default in kernel.
If we want to pursue this, I propose a different scheme.
Hand
