On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 15:35, 'Andrey Konovalov' via kasan-dev <kasan-...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 8:44 PM Marco Elver <el...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Adds config variable CC_HAS_WORKING_NOSANITIZE, which will be true if we > > have a compiler that does not fail builds due to no_sanitize functions. > > This does not yet mean they work as intended, but for automated > > build-tests, this is the minimum requirement. > > > > For example, we require that __always_inline functions used from > > no_sanitize functions do not generate instrumentation. On GCC <= 7 this > > fails to build entirely, therefore we make the minimum version GCC 8. > > > > For KCSAN this is a non-functional change, however, we should add it in > > case this variable changes in future. > > > > Link: > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200602175859.gc2...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net > > Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > > Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <el...@google.com> > > Acked-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyk...@google.com>
I've sent a v2 of this, which limits the compiler-bump to KASAN only. It appears no_sanitize_undefined (for UBSAN) is not broken GCC <= 7, and in general the no_sanitize attributes seem to behave differently from sanitizer to sanitizer as we discovered for UBSAN. https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200604055811.247298-1-el...@google.com
