Thanks!
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> Of course. Will post the patch shortly.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "address-sanitizer" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>
Of course. Will post the patch shortly.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"address-sanitizer" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to address-sanitizer+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, v
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> FYI, this bug can be found by patched AddressSanitizer:
>>
>
By patched, you mean the recvfrom interceptor below, right?
Would you like to contribute it?
>
> ==18133==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow on address
>
Oh,I mean CVE-2015-7547 of course.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"address-sanitizer" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to address-sanitizer+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
Alloca instrumentation is really cool :)
пятница, 19 февраля 2016 г., 21:31:46 UTC+3 пользователь Maxim Ostapenko
написал:
>
> FYI, this bug can be found by patched AddressSanitizer:
>>
>
> ==18133==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow on address
> 0x7ffc15acc820 at pc 0x00
>
> FYI, this bug can be found by patched AddressSanitizer:
>
==18133==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: dynamic-stack-buffer-overflow on address
0x7ffc15acc820 at pc 0x0048fea6 bp 0x7ffc15aca950 sp 0x7ffc15aca0f0
info: UDP server 1: sending response: 2076 bytes, RCODE 0 (for
www123.example/1/28)
RE
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Yuri Gribov
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> >> wrote:
> >> > +Roland
> >> >
> >> > T
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>> > +Roland
>> >
>> > The only good solution is to have the upstream glibc fixed and
>> > maintained i
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
> > +Roland
> >
> > The only good solution is to have the upstream glibc fixed and
> maintained in
> > this state.
> > (We need to make it build with clang+asan and have the bot
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> +Roland
>
> The only good solution is to have the upstream glibc fixed and maintained in
> this state.
> (We need to make it build with clang+asan and have the bots that verify it
> still works on every commit).
Why not sanitize it w
+Roland
The only good solution is to have the upstream glibc fixed and maintained
in this state.
(We need to make it build with clang+asan and have the bots that verify it
still works on every commit).
Roland wanted to try doing that; not sure what's the current state.
Anyway, I think this should
Hi,
I thought given the current issues with glibc I'd bring that up.
A while ago I had a conversation with Kostya about building glibc with
asan. I think it can be summed up as "it's possible, but requires lots
of manual work and is complicated".
The publicly available documentation is currently
12 matches
Mail list logo
