On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:30:13PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> I am sorry, I missed this message.
> Indeed, the change looks safe,
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=176250&view=rev
Thanks, here is what I've committed to gcc:
2013-02-28 Jakub Jelinek
* asan/asan_mappi
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> Sure. ASAN_FIXED_MAPPING should be used for performance measurements
>> only -- this is not a release option.
>> (Added a more precise comment).
>
> BTW, today I think
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> Sure. ASAN_FIXED_MAPPING should be used for performance measurements
> only -- this is not a release option.
> (Added a more precise comment).
BTW, today I think I've discovered what looks like a prelink bug,
but perhaps we n
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:39:28AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the system linker.
>> > Any suggestion on how
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:39:28AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the system linker.
> > Any suggestion on how to make the test work with either linker?
>
> I don't know of
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the system linker.
> Any suggestion on how to make the test work with either linker?
I don't know of a way to set the address of the text segment for both
GNU ld and gold. As you h
I've submitted http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=175263
If it survives a few days of testing I'll do another merge to gcc.
--kcc
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30:18PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> > OT, unrelated thing, in include/asan_interface.h there is one
>> > #if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
>> > which for GCC should better be:
>> > #if (defined __has_f
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30:18PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > OT, unrelated thing, in include/asan_interface.h there is one
> > #if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
> > which for GCC should better be:
> > #if (defined __has_feature && __has_feature(address_sanitizer)) \
> > || defi
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> This is ungood.
>> First, clang doesn't like it at all:
>> prelink1.cc:18:18: error: init_priority attribute requires integer
>> constant between 101 and 65535 inclusiv
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> This is ungood.
> First, clang doesn't like it at all:
> prelink1.cc:18:18: error: init_priority attribute requires integer
> constant between 101 and 65535 inclusive
> A __attribute__((init_priority (1))) a;
For gcc it is ju
Ian, there is a question for you below.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:45:15AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wr
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:45:15AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> >> The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
> >> I am trying to understand
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
>> I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
>> added complexity (which is what
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
>> I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
>> added complexity (which is what
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
> I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
> added complexity (which is what I don't like the most).
Yes, it is some added complexity,
The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
added complexity (which is what I don't like the most).
-Wl,-Ttext-segment=0x36 does not work with binutils-gold.
gold understands -Wl,-Ttext=0x36, but
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Here is the patch, works just fine for me here during asan.exp testing.
> You can very easily either install and enable prelink on one of your
> x86_64-linux testing boxes, or just install it and add test that
> will say prelink -r 0x
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
>>
>> Lots of changes. Among other things:
>> -
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:48:32AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > The reexec is problematic, what if the program already in constructors run
> > before __asan_init (perhaps ctors of other libraries etc.) does something
> > that r
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
>
> Lots of changes. Among other things:
> - x86_64 linux: change the shadow offset to 0x7fff8000 (~5% speedup)
> - the new asan al
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> The reexec is problematic, what if the program already in constructors run
> before __asan_init (perhaps ctors of other libraries etc.) does something
> that really shouldn't be done twice?
>
Jakub,
Wouldn't sorting all of the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:39:15PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > No. You can disable it for the whole system (prelink -ua), but that is not
> > a sane requirement to running sanitized programs.
>
> Why not?
> :)
Because that is a fully system operation, requires root access, etc.
The f
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
> > so this came unnoticed.
> > Fixed in r175049.
> ...
>
> This is ok, thanks.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> >> > Unfortunately, it seems every
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:27:56PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> ASAN could set an ELF flag on the executable to tell the kernel not
> to use prelinked objects? That is, similar to how we handle executable
> stacks?
But we don't have such a flag right now, and what should old kernels that
don't
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> >> > Unfortunately, it seems every
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> >> > Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
> >> > The problem
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> > Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
>> > The problem is that the default prelink library range for x86_64 is
>> > 0x30LL to
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
> > The problem is that the default prelink library range for x86_64 is
> > 0x30LL to 0x40LL, and that unfortunately overlaps
>
> Forgiv
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> > Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
>> > so this came unnoticed.
>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
> > so this came unnoticed.
> > Fixed in r175049.
> ...
>
> This is ok, thanks.
Unfortu
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
> so this came unnoticed.
> Fixed in r175049.
...
This is ok, thanks.
Jakub
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:19:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
>
> Lots of changes. Among other things:
> - x86_64 linux: change the shadow offset to 0x7fff8000 (~5% speedup)
> - the new asan allocato
34 matches
Mail list logo
