On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabi...@virtuozzo.com> wrote: > On 01/19/2018 08:44 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: >> Instead of __asan_report_load_n_noabort and __asan_report_store_n_noabort >> callbacks Clang emits differently named __asan_report_loadN_noabort and >> __asan_report_storeN_noabort (similar to __asan_loadN/storeN_noabort, whose >> names both GCC and Clang agree on). >> >> Add callback implementation for __asan_report_loadN/storeN_noabort. >> > > This made me wonder why this wasn't observed before. So I noticed that > inline instrumentation with -fsanitize=kernel-addresss is broken in clang, > and clang never calls __asan_report*() functions. I see that you guys fixed > this > just yesterday https://reviews.llvm.org/D42384 .
Correct. > > But it seems that you didn't fix the rest of "if (CompileKernel)" crap. > Clang generates "__asan_report_[load,store]N*" instead of > "__asan_report_[load,store]_n*" > only because of this idiocy: > > const std::string SuffixStr = CompileKernel ? "N" : "_n"; > > See > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/ca19eaabd75f55865efd321b7a6f1d4ba3db8bc8/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp#L2250 > > Note that SuffixStr is used *only* for __asan_report_* callbacks, which makes > no sense because > we never ever had __asan_report* callbacks with "N" suffix. > > So I think that you should just fix the llvm here. I think you are right. I thought that GCC uses different and inconsistent callback names for the kernel and user space, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I submitted an LLVM change: https://reviews.llvm.org/D42423 Please discard this patch. > > And there is probably one more "if (CompileKernel)" crap in runOnModule() > which breaks globals instrumentation. Right, this will be fixed at some point. > > >
