Re: explicit_bzero vs ASAN on linux

2022-02-09 Thread Todd C . Miller
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 11:35:58 +0100, Theo Buehler wrote: > On clang we can use __has_feature(), but that doesn't exist on > gcc which defines __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ if it compiles with > -fsanitize=address. > > This doesn't warn on sparc64 and works in my test setups. It's a little ugly but since th

Re: explicit_bzero vs ASAN on linux

2022-02-09 Thread Theo Buehler
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:45:09PM +1100, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:09:35AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote: > > In libressl-portable we run the explicit_bzero tests as part of the > > builds. If we enable ASAN on linux, this test segfaults in > > __interceptor_memmem() in the two

Re: explicit_bzero vs ASAN on linux

2022-02-09 Thread Jonathan Gray
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:09:35AM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote: > In libressl-portable we run the explicit_bzero tests as part of the > builds. If we enable ASAN on linux, this test segfaults in > __interceptor_memmem() in the two test_with{,out}_bzero() functions, > presumably because the sigaltstac

explicit_bzero vs ASAN on linux

2022-02-09 Thread Theo Buehler
In libressl-portable we run the explicit_bzero tests as part of the builds. If we enable ASAN on linux, this test segfaults in __interceptor_memmem() in the two test_with{,out}_bzero() functions, presumably because the sigaltstack magic is too low level for ASAN to grok. Would the patch below that