Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 16 November 2017 at 13:25, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko >> wrote: >>> >>> On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

Hi Christophe, On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:40:32PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > > But on the upstream sanitizer repo, > > sanitizer_common/sanitizer_syscall_linux_arm.inc was added on Nov 8th, > > and also checks for retval >= -4095, hence handling the clone() error > > gracefully. So... can we merge again our

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

Hi, On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi,

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> >> On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> sorry for the late response. >>> >>> On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30/10/2017 16:54, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 18:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30/10/17 18:46, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Is the patch (the merge + this

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:12:47PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > I've caught the same error on my Arndale board. The issue seems to be quite > obvious: after merge, ASan requires globals array to be aligned by shadow > granularity. > This trivial patch seems to fix the issue. Could you check it

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

Hi, sorry for the late response. On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? I think the patch

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? >> >> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: > > Richi just approved the

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 10/19/17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? >> >> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: > > Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On 19.10.2017 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >>> Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? >> >> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: > > Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? > > I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then we can deal with follow-ups. > 1) We have a

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

Hi, I'm sorry for a late response. On 19/10/17 13:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The following patch is an attempt at libsanitizer merge from upstream. Sadly libubsan has several ABI incompatible changes, dunno if we should fight the

Re: [RFC PATCH] Merge libsanitizer from upstream

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The following patch is an attempt at libsanitizer merge from upstream. > Sadly libubsan has several ABI incompatible changes, dunno if we should > fight the mess and re-add backward compatibility back, or as the patch > does just