On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
<konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Yury Gribov <y.gri...@samsung.com> wrote:
>>> - using instrumentation via calls adds extra 1.5x-2.x slowdown
>>
>> On x64.
>
> Interesting. can you share your ARM numbers?
>
>>
>>
>>> - it would be nice to have the name prefix configurable from command
>>> line (${PREFIX}_load1 instead of __asan_load1) because kasan uses
>>> different names already.
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed corresponding option in LLVM. AFAIK standard GCC parameters
>> infrastructure (--param) only supports integral values so we'll need a
>> separate flag for this feature. I'm curious, why do you need separate names
>> for Kasan?
>
> Well, maybe we don't. It'll just cause us a minor headache to change the
> names.
> Dmitry?
In our original patch we've used -fsanitize=kernel-address flag and
__kasan_load1 function names:
https://codereview.appspot.com/14271043/
The instrumentation for asan/kasan eventually will be different. It's
also easy to confuse command line flags and build kernel with
user-space instrumentation or vise versa, and then debug mysterious
crashes.
Asan and kasan are very different, so it would be good to separate
them straight away.
