On 2024/08/16 17:24, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 16/08/2024 10.21, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/08/16 17:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 16/08/2024 09.30, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/08/16 16:27, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 16/08/2024 09.12, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
On 2024/08/16 16:03, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 16/08/2024 08.22, Akihiko Odaki wrote:
Commit 23ef50ae2d0c (".gitlab-ci.d/buildtest.yml: Use
-fno-sanitize=function in the clang-system job") adds
-fno-sanitize=function for the CI but doesn't add the flag in the
other context. Add it to meson.build for such. It is not removed
from
.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest.yml because -fno-sanitize=function in
meson.build
does not affect --extra-cflags due to argument ordering.
Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- I was not properly dropping the change of
.gitlab-ci.d/buildtest.yml
but only updated the message. v3 fixes this. (Thomas Huth)
- Link to v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240729-function-v2-1-2401ab18b...@daynix.com
Changes in v2:
- Dropped the change of: .gitlab-ci.d/buildtest.yml
- Link to v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240714-function-v1-1-cc2acb417...@daynix.com
---
meson.build | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build
index 5613b62a4f42..a4169c572ba9 100644
--- a/meson.build
+++ b/meson.build
@@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ if host_os != 'openbsd' and \
endif
qemu_common_flags += cc.get_supported_arguments(hardening_flags)
+qemu_common_flags +=
cc.get_supported_arguments('-fno-sanitize=function')
As I mentioned in my last mail: I think it would make sense to
move this at the end of the "if get_option('tsan')" block in
meson.build, since this apparently only fixes the use of
"--enable-sanitizers", and cannot fix the "--extra-cflags" that a
user might have specified?
Sorry, I missed it. It cannot fix --extra-cflags, but it should be
able to fix compiler flags specified by compiler distributor.
Oh, you mean that there are distros that enable -fsanitize=function
by default? Can you name one? If so, I think that information
should go into the patch description...?
No, it is just a precaution.
Ok. I don't think any normal distro will enable this by default since
this impacts performance of the programs, so it's either the user
specifying --enable-sanitizers or the user specifying
--extra-cflags="-fsanitize=...". In the latter case, your patch does
not help. In the former case, I think this setting should go into the
same code block as where we set -fsanitize=undefined in our
meson.build file, so that it is clear where it belongs to.
It does not look like -fno-sanitize=function belongs to the code block
to me. Putting -fno-sanitize=function in the code block will make it
seem to say that we should disable function sanitizer because the user
requests to enable sanitizers, which makes little sense.
As far as I understood, -fsanitize=undefine turns on
-fsanitize=function, too, or did I get that wrong?
If not, how did you run into this problem? How did you enable the
function sanitizer if not using --enable-sanitizers ?
The point is we don't care who enables sanitizers, and unconditonally
setting -fno-sanitize=function will clarify that.
