On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Sure. ASAN_FIXED_MAPPING should be used for performance measurements
only -- this is not a release option.
(Added a more precise comment).
BTW, today
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:30:13PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
I am sorry, I missed this message.
Indeed, the change looks safe,
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=176250view=rev
Thanks, here is what I've committed to gcc:
2013-02-28 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
*
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Sure. ASAN_FIXED_MAPPING should be used for performance measurements
only -- this is not a release option.
(Added a more precise comment).
BTW, today I think I've discovered what looks like a prelink bug,
but perhaps we
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:39:28AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the system linker.
Any suggestion on how to make the test work with either
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 07:39:28AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:45:15AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
I am trying to
Ian, there is a question for you below.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 11:45:15AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
This is ungood.
First, clang doesn't like it at all:
prelink1.cc:18:18: error: init_priority attribute requires integer
constant between 101 and 65535 inclusive
A __attribute__((init_priority (1))) a;
For gcc it is just a
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
This is ungood.
First, clang doesn't like it at all:
prelink1.cc:18:18: error: init_priority attribute requires integer
constant between 101 and 65535
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30:18PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
OT, unrelated thing, in include/asan_interface.h there is one
#if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
which for GCC should better be:
#if (defined __has_feature __has_feature(address_sanitizer)) \
||
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 01:30:18PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
OT, unrelated thing, in include/asan_interface.h there is one
#if __has_feature(address_sanitizer)
which for GCC should better be:
#if (defined
I've submitted http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revisionrevision=175263
If it survives a few days of testing I'll do another merge to gcc.
--kcc
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the test does not work if gold is the system linker.
Any suggestion on how to make the test work with either linker?
I don't know of a way to set the address of the text segment for
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:29 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
Lots of changes. Among other things:
- x86_64 linux
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Here is the patch, works just fine for me here during asan.exp testing.
You can very easily either install and enable prelink on one of your
x86_64-linux testing boxes, or just install it and add test that
will say prelink -r
The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
added complexity (which is what I don't like the most).
-Wl,-Ttext-segment=0x36 does not work with binutils-gold.
gold understands -Wl,-Ttext=0x36,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
added complexity
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:55:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
The patch seems to work on a simple test. Let me digest it.
I am trying to understand if there are problems with it other than the
added complexity
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:19:47PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
Lots of changes. Among other things:
- x86_64 linux: change the shadow offset to 0x7fff8000 (~5% speedup)
- the new asan allocator is enabled on Mac
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
so this came unnoticed.
Fixed in r175049.
...
This is ok, thanks.
Jakub
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
so this came unnoticed.
Fixed in r175049.
...
This is ok, thanks.
Unfortunately,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
so this came
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
The problem is that the default prelink library range for x86_64 is
0x30LL to 0x40LL, and that unfortunately overlaps
Forgive my
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
The problem is that the default prelink library range for x86_64 is
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems everything fails with that change :( on Linux.
The
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:27:56PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
ASAN could set an ELF flag on the executable to tell the kernel not
to use prelinked objects? That is, similar to how we handle executable
stacks?
But we don't have such a flag right now, and what should old kernels that
don't
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:57:30PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:32:33PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:28:25PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Right. In LLVM we test only with ASAN_FLEXIBLE_MAPPING_AND_OFFSET==1,
so this came unnoticed.
Fixed in r175049.
...
This is ok, thanks.
Jakub
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:39:15PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
No. You can disable it for the whole system (prelink -ua), but that is not
a sane requirement to running sanitized programs.
Why not?
:)
Because that is a fully system operation, requires root access, etc.
The fact
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The reexec is problematic, what if the program already in constructors run
before __asan_init (perhaps ctors of other libraries etc.) does something
that really shouldn't be done twice?
Jakub,
Wouldn't sorting all of the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The attached patch is the libsanitizer merge from upstream r175042.
Lots of changes. Among other things:
- x86_64 linux: change the shadow offset to 0x7fff8000 (~5% speedup)
- the new asan
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:48:32AM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:19:14PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The reexec is problematic, what if the program already in constructors run
before __asan_init (perhaps ctors of other libraries etc.) does something
that really
33 matches
Mail list logo
