On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:48 PM Marco Elver wrote:
> > Hello, Jakub,
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 16:58, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:55 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > FWIW this is:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:55 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > FWIW this is:
> >
> > Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov
> >
> > We just landed a similar change to llvm:
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/5a2c31116f412c3b6888be361137ef
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:43 PM Marco Elver wrote:
>
> Add support to optionally emit different instrumentation for accesses to
> volatile variables. While the default TSAN runtime likely will never
> require this feature, other runtimes for different environments that
> have subtly different memo
Some stats from kernel build for number of trace_cmp callbacks:
gcc
non-const: 38051
const: 272726
total: 310777
clang:
non-const: 45944
const: 266299
total: 312243
The total is quite close. Gcc seems to emit more const callbacks, which is good.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Vyukov
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
> Hi
> The trace-div and trace-gep options seems be used to evaluate corpus
> to trigger specific kind of bugs. And they don't have strong effect to
> coverage.
>
> The trace-pc-guard is useful, but it may be much more complex than trace-pc.
> I thin
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:38 PM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
> Hi
> I will update the patch according to your requirements, and with some my
> suggestions.
> It will take me one or two days.
Thanks! No hurry, just wanted to make sure you still want to pursue this.
> Wish Wu
>
> -
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control
>>> structures. So that would be:
>>> _4 = x_8(D)
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> What we instrument in LLVM is _comparisons_ rather than control
>> structures. So that would be:
>> _4 = x_8(D) == 98;
>> For example, result of the comparison can be store
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 01:38:17PM +0800, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
>> Hi Jeff
>>
>> I have signed the copyright assignment, and used the name 'Wish Wu' .
>> Should I send you a copy of my assignment ?
>>
>> The attachment is my new patch with small chan
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 11:53 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
> Hi all
> Is it worth adding my codes to gcc ? Are there some steps I need to do ?
> Could somebody tell me the progress ?
FYI, we've mailed a Linux kernel change that uses this instrumentation:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/syzkaller/r0
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 9:21 AM, 吴潍浠(此彼) wrote:
> Hi
>
> Implementing __sanitizer_cov_trace_cmp[1248]_const is OK .
> And I will try to find some determinate way to judge this comparison is for
> loop or not.
> Because all the loops(for() or while()) seem to be transformed to "if" and
> "goto" b
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> Hi
>
> I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" .
>
> Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ?
Nice!
We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" .
>> >
>> > Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ?
>>
>>
>> Nice!
>>
>> We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing that use the
>> comp
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Wish Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> In fact, under linux with "return address" and file "/proc/self/maps",
> we can give unique id for every comparison.
Yes, it's doable. But you expressed worries about performance hit of
merging callbacks for different sizes. Mapping pc + i
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wish Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" .
>
> Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ?
Nice!
We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing that use the
comparison tracing. We use clang at the momen
15 matches
Mail list logo
