[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a question. If there is a ELF verifier function that walks every
>> part of an ELF file to verify that the file is sane, and if you can call
>> that before calling LLD's function, are you guys happy with that?
>>
>
> I'd like to get you guys opinion on this question.
>

I'd still find it problematic that lld itself would consider
crash-on-invalid "not a bug" to the point of not reviewing/approving
patches to fix such issues. That's what I'm concerned about in this thread.


>
>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From: *"David Blaikie via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> *To: *"Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Bruce Hoult" <
>>> bruce at hoult.org>
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:18:03 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Need help with code generation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:27 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Maybe not, but it's not impossible either - browsers manage to harden
>>>> themselves against malicious input and they operate in a far hostile
>>>> environment with many more input formats than we do.
>>>>
>>>> It is important to note how different they are. Both Firefox and
>>>> Chromium have people working just to try to make them more secure.
>>>> Compare that with LLVM: One week ago I pointed out that your patch
>>>> (r263521) introduces a crash. It still hasn't been reverted or even
>>>> acknowledge yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I'm not trying to shift your personal goal, or to direct the features
>>>> that you choose to put your time into, but I am interested in project
>>>> policy.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you care about policy that is not followed? A policy saying
>>>> llvm should not crash on any input is as relevant as one that says
>>>> that clang should keep bootstrapping in under one second.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's pretty different when you say, essentially, that patches to address
>>> these things are unlikely to be accepted. It doesn't seem surprising that
>>> people wouldn't try to provide those patches and would choose not to use
>>> the project if that's the expressed policy of the developers on the project
>>> and doesn't line up with the needs of other people.
>>>
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>  -Hal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, if we stick to reality, what we have is that lld (ELF and COFF)
>>>> are already the most reliable parts of the toolchain. If not for Rui
>>>> and I being upfront about it most people would not even know that you
>>>> could crash it. So please, just let us keep working on the most
>>>> reliable part of the toolchain.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hal Finkel
>>> Assistant Computational Scientist
>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160322/8ae834ef/attachment.html>