<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 22, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Rafael,<div class=""> <br class=""></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"><span style="font-size:13px" class="">It is really annoying how much people care about "security" to </span><span style="font-size:13px" class="">criticize my work,</span></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I hesitate to even pile on this thread, but Lang said something here that I felt really needed to be highlighted:</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><b class="">I think LLVM projects should aim for robustness even knowing they're going to fall short,</b></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>More generally than this, my favorite thing about working on LLVM projects is that as a community we strive to very high software quality standards. Even if we don’t meet our own standards having them changes the community emphasis. I think having those standards is a huge part of why the LLVM codebase is as high quality as it is.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I hope that a commitment to general software quality is a cornerstone of LLD. Not treating all segfaults as P0 bugs is not a decision based in software quality.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""> because I think there is a real difference between a project which can be easily exploited, and one that takes effort to exploit.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote 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" class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><div class=""><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"><span style="font-size:13px" class="">Would it end this thread if I went that way? Just say that there are</span></blockquote></div></div><div class=""><div class=""><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"><span style="font-size:13px" class="">bugs in lld and just not fix them for over a year?</span></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class=""> </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"><span style="font-size:13px" class="">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".</span></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">+1</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:13px" class="">Cheers,</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:13px" class="">Lang.</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:13px" class=""><br class=""></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Rafael Espíndola <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">><br class="">
> 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.).<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>What I don't get this what is the point of a "somewhat secure". Does<br class="">
it make a difference if takes 5 minutes of 5 hours to find a buffer<br class="">
overflow?<br class="">
<span class=""><br class="">
>> What allocator would you start with?<br class="">
>><br class="">
><br class="">
> 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.<br class="">
><br class="">
<br class="">
</span>And today it is still way easier to crash llvm than lld. I posted two<br class="">
crashes with just what I noticed going on the list. No one even<br class="">
posted an ELF that would crash lld.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">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.</div><span class=""><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It is really annoying how much people care about "security" to<br class="">
criticize my work, but never enough to send a patch. <a href="http://llvm.org/pr21466" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">llvm.org/pr21466</a><br class="">
is open since Nov 2014. That is on the side of the project that should<br class="">
be handling broken files.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br class="">
Would it end this thread if I went that way? Just say that there are<br class="">
bugs in lld and just not fix them for over a year?<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">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".<br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">- Dave</div><span class=""><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=""><div class=""><br class="">
Cheers,<br class="">
Rafael<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
LLVM Developers mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br class="">
</div></div></blockquote></span></div><br class=""></div></div>
<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">
LLVM Developers mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">LLVM Developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" class="">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br class="">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>