[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[Hal Finkel via llvm-dev]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lang Hames via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Bruce Hoult" <bruce at hoult.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:57:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> 
> 
> It is really annoying how much people care about "security" to
> criticize my work,
> 
> 
> FWIW it was never my intention to criticize your work. I think your
> work is amazing, and I hope you continue. What I've taken issue with
> is the policy stance. I think LLVM projects should aim for
> robustness even knowing they're going to fall short, because I think
> there is a real difference between a project which can be easily
> exploited, and one that takes effort to exploit.
> 

 +1

> 
> Would it end this thread if I went that way? Just say that there are
> 
> 
> 
> bugs in lld and just not fix them for over a year?
> 
> 
> It would make a big difference if it was "Yes, these are bugs but not
> high priority for the current/active contributors to invest time in
> fixing (but happy to review patches to fix them, etc)" versus "these
> are not bugs/it's highly unlikely we'd accept patches to fix them".
> 
> 
> +1

+1

 -Hal

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Lang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > This is a completely inappropriate comparison. LibreSSL is a
> > cryptographic library. Creating a high-quality cryptographic
> > library requires much more than eliminating buffer overruns
> > (etc.).
> 
> What I don't get this what is the point of a "somewhat secure". Does
> it make a difference if takes 5 minutes of 5 hours to find a buffer
> overflow?
> 
> >> What allocator would you start with?
> >> 
> > 
> > We recently had a bunch of patches fixing issues found when fuzz
> > testing LLVM with ASAN, and I thought that was a very positive
> > development.
> > 
> 
> And today it is still way easier to crash llvm than lld. I posted two
> crashes with just what I noticed going on the list. No one even
> posted an ELF that would crash lld.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we were responding to the stated policy that it's intentional
> that LLD would crash/UB on certain inputs. We're debating that
> policy/intention.
> 
> 
> It is really annoying how much people care about "security" to
> criticize my work, but never enough to send a patch. llvm.org/pr21466
> is open since Nov 2014. That is on the side of the project that
> should
> be handling broken files.
> 
> 
> Would it end this thread if I went that way? Just say that there are
> bugs in lld and just not fix them for over a year?
> 
> 
> 
> It would make a big difference if it was "Yes, these are bugs but not
> high priority for the current/active contributors to invest time in
> fixing (but happy to review patches to fix them, etc)" versus "these
> are not bugs/it's highly unlikely we'd accept patches to fix them".
> 
> Across the project we certainly prioritize bugs based on impact to
> those who are involved - we tend to fix Clang crash-on-valid faster
> than crash-on-invalid (certainly Kostya's been frustrated by lack of
> traction on some of the fuzzer findings - because few people need a
> security hardened LLVM/Clang, but generally "doesn't crash" is
> considered to be a valid/accepted goal, even if it's not hardened).
> Some bugs impact some users more than others, so are more important
> to some developers. 'tis the way of things.
> 
> - Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory