On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 1:17 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should hold off on bringing the unsigned sanitizer back? I was
> hoping to work in parallel with the signed sanitizer, but maybe this
> isn't the right approach?
If you can do anything to keep it in-tree, I think it would be nice so
th
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 13:17, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:01:55PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:16, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > +config UBSAN_UNSIGNED_WRAP
> > > + bool "Perform checking for unsigned arithmetic wrap-around"
> > > + de
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:01:55PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:16, Kees Cook wrote:
> > [...]
> > +config UBSAN_UNSIGNED_WRAP
> > + bool "Perform checking for unsigned arithmetic wrap-around"
> > + depends on $(cc-option,-fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow)
>
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:16, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Effectively revert commit 6aaa31aeb9cf ("ubsan: remove overflow
> checks"), to allow the kernel to be built with the "overflow"
> sanitizers again. This gives developers a chance to experiment[1][2][3]
> with the instrumentation again, while compil
Effectively revert commit 6aaa31aeb9cf ("ubsan: remove overflow
checks"), to allow the kernel to be built with the "overflow"
sanitizers again. This gives developers a chance to experiment[1][2][3]
with the instrumentation again, while compilers adjust their sanitizers
to deal with the impact of -f
