[PATCH] D13781: [sanitizer] Use same shadow offset for aarch64

Adhemerval Zanella via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sat Oct 17 09:06:03 PDT 2015


zatrazz added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13781#268815, @rengolin wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13781#268809, @zatrazz wrote:
>
> > thus consume slight more memory in mapping (which is something I think we can live with).
>
>
> When we proposed using the same mapping for both in January we were told that the memory increase was a real problem and that we should find a way that it could work best on both. That's why we started all this. :)


I will check which is the memory consumption difference by internal allocators with
and without this patch on 39-bit VMA.

> I'd like to have everyone agreeing that we can, indeed, live with it and finish this now. Last thing I want is to start a third round...

> 

> > That's not true, tsan can not be run with asan (trying to use -fsanitize=address,thread issues an error).

> 

> 

> I stand corrected.

> 

> > You can have some

> 

> >  sanitizer working together, like asan and lsan, but it is due both use the same infrastructure.

> 

> 

> But my question still stands: Won't all the other sanitizers break when run together with ASAN with this change?

> 

> I thought we had cross tests like that already, so maybe my question is answered already...


Afaik tests already cover the sanitizers that are meant to run concurrently, which for ASAN is LSAN and UBAN.
MSAN and TSAN requires different instrumentation and their mapping are defined independently of each other.

> cheers,

> --renato



http://reviews.llvm.org/D13781





More information about the llvm-commits mailing list