On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:54:18AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 6:43 AM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote:
> > The attached patch assumes that mach_override/mach_override.h
> > and mach_override/mach_override.c has been imported by the libsanitizer
> > maintainers for use by darwin.
>
> So, the patches are a nice start. Since we are in stage3, they need to go
> in, in a way that is suitable for release. If the feature is expected to
> work (I think that's true) and if these patches don't yet work well enough (I
> don't have a take on wether this is the case or not), then as the patches go
> in, they need to go in with the feature off or disabled. So, I'd like a
> person that understand s libsanitizer and what we need (what is suitable) for
> release to approve the patches. If I do, I'd need to understand more than I
> do. What we don't want, a half implementation that is worse than saying,
> unsupported. I don't mind if the support isn't complete, yet, what is there
> works fine.
Mike,
With Alexander Potapenko's proposed patch for
interception/mach_override/mach_override.c...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55289#c29
the use-after-free test case from
http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizer now
passes without errors on both x86_64-apple-darwin12 and i386-apple-darwin10. So
at the moment we
don't have any known issues. Hopefully we can get the missing
interception/mach_override/mach_override.c
and interception/mach_override/mach_override.h files added soon along with the
build patch so we can
start monitoring libsanitizer for other issues in mach_override.c.
Jack
