REPOSITORY
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
Files:
cfe/trunk/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
cfe/trunk/docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.rst
cfe/trunk/docs/UsersManual.rst
cfe/trunk/docs/index.rst
cfe/trunk/include/clang/AST/Mangle.h
cfe/trunk/include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def
c
lgtm
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
- Improve docs
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
Files:
docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.rst
docs/UsersManual.rst
docs/index.rst
include/clang/AST/Mangle.h
include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def
include/clang/Driver/Driver.h
include/clang/Driver/SanitizerArgs
Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:20
@@ +19,3 @@
+program's control flow. These schemes have been optimized for performance,
+allowing developers to enable them in release builds.
+
jfb wrote:
> jfb wrote:
> > Is there a reference number we can quote, or a
Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:20
@@ +19,3 @@
+program's control flow. These schemes have been optimized for performance,
+allowing developers to enable them in release builds.
+
jfb wrote:
> Is there a reference number we can quote, or a benchmark that
This patch lgtm: IIUC it sounds like devirtualization will still be possible
with this approach.
Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:20
@@ +19,3 @@
+program's control flow. These schemes have been optimized for performance,
+allowing developers to enable them in release bu
- Add design doc
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
Files:
docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.rst
docs/UsersManual.rst
docs/index.rst
include/clang/AST/Mangle.h
include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def
include/clang/Driver/Driver.h
include/clang/Driver/SanitizerAr
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424#120046, @pcc wrote:
> In my opinion, adding checks in LLVM would add significant complexity and/or
> require changing axioms relating to how IR is transformed. The transform to
> move the check after devirtualization would be relatively simple.
>
> > Also: if we
In my opinion, adding checks in LLVM would add significant complexity and/or
require changing axioms relating to how IR is transformed. The transform to
move the check after devirtualization would be relatively simple.
> Also: if we want to do CFI for non-virtual indirect calls, will we be addin
So, the effort to remove the redundant checks is reasonable, but not zero.
Will this effort be greater than the effort to add the checks downstream in
llvm after all the devirtualization has happened?
Also: if we want to do CFI for non-virtual indirect calls, will we be adding it
in clang or in
- Add note that schemes are under development
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
Files:
docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
docs/UsersManual.rst
docs/index.rst
include/clang/AST/Mangle.h
include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def
include/clang/Driver/Driver.h
include/clang/Driver/SanitizerArgs.h
li
I've verified that this scheme does not inhibit the current scheme of
devirtualization via constant propagation. For example, in the following
program:
struct A {
virtual void f() = 0;
};
struct B : A {
virtual void f();
};
void B::f() {}
A* ptr() {
return new B;
So, you've decided to implement this in clang, as opposed to llvm.
My concern with this is that if devirtualization (either partial or full)
happens later in llvm
the checks will remain. Or even worse, the checks may potentially inhibit
devirtualization and we will never know.
Your valid concern
Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:3
@@ +2,3 @@
+Control Flow Integrity
+==
+
jfb wrote:
> Could you add a section which contains links to publications on CFI, for the
> approaches that are implemented as well as ones that aren't but may
- Address review comments
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424
Files:
docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
docs/UsersManual.rst
docs/index.rst
include/clang/AST/Mangle.h
include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.def
include/clang/Driver/Driver.h
include/clang/Driver/SanitizerArgs.h
lib/AST/ItaniumMangle.
Comment at: lib/AST/ItaniumMangle.cpp:3945
@@ +3944,3 @@
+SourceManager &SM = getASTContext().getSourceManager();
+Out << "[" << SM.getFileEntryForID(SM.getMainFileID())->getName() << "]";
+ }
jfb wrote:
> Is that just the basename? Does it take capitaliza
Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:3
@@ +2,3 @@
+Control Flow Integrity
+==
+
Could you add a section which contains links to publications on CFI, for the
approaches that are implemented as well as ones that aren't but may be relevant.
Hi jfb, kcc, silvas,
This patch introduces the -fsanitize=cfi-vptr flag, which enables a control
flow integrity scheme that checks that virtual calls take place using a vptr of
the correct dynamic type. More details in the new docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst
file.
It also introduces the -fsanitize=
18 matches
Mail list logo
