<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Chandler Carruth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com" target="_blank">chandlerc@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="h5">On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Kostya Serebryany <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kcc@google.com" target="_blank">kcc@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><div>On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Chandler Carruth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chandlerc@google.com" target="_blank">chandlerc@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sean Silva <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:silvas@purdue.edu" target="_blank">silvas@purdue.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Kostya Serebryany <<a href="mailto:kcc@google.com" target="_blank">kcc@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Clang has two attributes to disable bug detection tools in a given function:<br>
><br>
> __attribute__((no_thread_safety_analysis)) disables clang's *static*<br>
> thread-safety analysis.<br>
> (<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#thread-safety-annotation-checking" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#thread-safety-annotation-checking</a>)<br>
><br>
> __attribute__((no_address_safety_analysis)) disables AddressSanitizer<br>
> (*dynamic* analysis)<br>
> <a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#extensions-for-dynamic-analysis" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#extensions-for-dynamic-analysis</a><br>
><br>
> Now we need two more attributes to disable<br>
> ThreadSanitizer (<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSanitizer.html" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSanitizer.html</a>)<br>
> and MemorySanitizer (<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/MemorySanitizer.html" target="_blank">http://clang.llvm.org/docs/MemorySanitizer.html</a>)<br>
><br>
> For MemorySanitizer I propose __attribute__((no_uninitialized_checks))<br>
> Objections? Better naming suggestion?<br>
> Maybe __attribute__((no_memory_sanitizer))?<br>
> (We deliberately named no-asan attribute "no_address_safety_analysis" w/o<br>
> mentioning asan<br>
> in the name to make this attribute usable for other tools, e.g. SAFECode.<br>
> So,<br>
> we may not want to tie the no-msan attribute to msan)<br>
<br>
</div>It seems to me like it is going to be simpler and more transparent to<br>
have the attribute explicitly mention the sanitizer, e.g.`<br>
__attribute__((no_sanitize("memory")))`; then the user knows exactly<br>
what they are getting (since the name corresponds with the command<br>
line option). If other tools want to use those attributes it's not<br>
hard to look for them.<br>
<br>
It also isn't entirely clear to me that the attribute would have<br>
exactly the same semantics for the sanitizers and some other tool.<br>
AFAIK the term "address safety" has no independent meaning and<br>
basically means "the things that asan checks", so the term "address"<br>
in `__attribute__((no_address_safety_analysis))` is already asan<br>
specific in that regard, and it would be clearer to just say<br>
`no_sanitize("memory")`.<br>
<br>
If we really want the attributes to be tool-agnostic, then they should<br>
describe what the function does that is naughty, e.g.<br>
`__attribute__((reads_unintialized_memory_on_purpose))`, and let the<br>
tool interpret that information and behave appropriately.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>This summarizes my feelings exactly.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that even if we grow a set of attributes that describe the semantic oddity of a function (such as reading uninitialized memory, etc), we would still want an escape hatch to just turn off the sanitizer. And when we do that, we really do want to use the exact same terminology that we use in the flags.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think it matters whether its one attribute or N attributes as long as we get some naming consistency. I would propose (for simplicity of implementation mostly):</div><div>
<br></div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_address))<br></div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_memory))<br></div><div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_thread))<br></div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_undefined))</div></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>I like the simplicity (also because we will have to implement these attributes in gcc too). </div><div><br></div><div>How about this? </div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_address)) is a synonym for __attribute__((no_address_safety_analysis)), i.e. disables AddressSanitizer checking. <br>
</div><div>(or maybe we should just leave no_address_safety_analysis?)</div><div><br></div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_memory)) disables MemorySanitizer checking, but still keeps the instrumentation required to avoid false positives. <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>__attribute__((no_sanitize_thread)) disables ThreadSanitizer checking for plain (non-atomic) loads/stores, but still keeps the instrumentation required to avoid false positives.<br></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>I like it. I would add all three so that we can update code to be consistent.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Thanks, I'll send a patch later unless I hear objections to this plan. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>Keep an eye out for a use case for an all-inclusive 'no_sanitize' that turns everything off.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>That's controversial. </div>On one hand, I've seen a couple of cases where we need both no_sanitize_address and no_sanitize_memory (mostly, custom stack unwinders that read random bytes on stack).</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I can also imagine cases where no_sanitize_address and no_sanitize_thread could be used together (e.g. deliberate out of bounds reads within aligned 8-byte word).</div><div class="gmail_quote">But we risk that no_sanitize will be abused to turn off all sanitizers when only two should really be disabled. <br>
<div style><br></div><div style>I'd rather not add this for now. </div><div style><br></div><div style>--kcc </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--kcc </div><div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div>...</div><div><br></div><div>This pattern should be easy to remember and understand, and removes a lot of ambiguity of which attribute goes with which sanitizer. It also makes it very clear that these are attributes pertaining to the dynamic analysis toolset, not to any static analysis toolset.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, I think we should support the existing attributes for backwards compatibility, at least for several releases.</div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>