[cfe-commits] [PATCH] [ubsan] Add support for -fsanitize-blacklist

[Richard Smith]

Clang side looks great to me, thanks!

Alexey: Does this look OK from your end?

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Will Dietz <wdietz2 at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Great, thank you both for your feedback.  I also agree the approach
> originally submitted was messy, and Richard you nailed the conflict
> that drove me to accept it.  Thank you for giving me a better
> alternative :).
>
> Updated patches attached.
>
> Notes:
> * It was unclear to what IR clang should generate for a blacklisted
> function/module when using address sanitizer.  I've added a test
> verifying a blacklisted function does /not/ get given the
> address-safety attribute, which is a deviation from existing
> functionality.  Looking at the Asan LLVM transform suggests this is
> fine (and seems like the right thing to do from clang's perspective
> regardless), but would appreciate confirmation this is correct.
> * I extended the AST serialization code to write out the sanitization
> flags, only because that's what the code does presently.  Note that
> all users of ASTReader seem to ignore benign language options (such as
> sanitization flags).  One result is that AFAICT testing this would
> require creating additional code to dump LangOpts or similar.  Is this
> worth pursuing?
> * At the time of CodeGenFunction construction we presently do not give
> the ctor sufficient information to query the blacklist (function
> name), so a conditionally bound reference didn't work.  Using a
> pointer seemed preferable to the refactoring required to alleviate
> this issue.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ~Will
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
>> I think that making blacklist available in Clang is a good idea.
>> I agree with Richard's comment as well.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the clang side, it seems messy and error-prone to distribute the
>>> checking for blacklisting across all the callers of EmitCheck, but I
>>> understand that you're trying to avoid generating the check condition
>>> for blacklisted functions. Maybe we could make a separate struct
>>> containing just the Sanitize* flags, and in the CodeGenFunction
>>> constructor bind a reference to either the global set of flags or a
>>> set of all-false flags, depending on whether we're blacklisted? This
>>> would also make it easier to blacklist specific sanitizers in specific
>>> functions later.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Will Dietz <wdietz2 at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>> > Minor touchup to clang patch, thanks!
>>> >
>>> > ~Will
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Will Dietz <wdietz2 at illinois.edu>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> Attached are two patches.
>>> >>
>>> >> First applies to clang and uses the blacklist to avoid instrumenting
>>> >> the source files or functions specified.  Lit test included.
>>> >>
>>> >> The other is a small change to llvm to make the "Blacklist" class
>>> >> visible to Clang.  Not sure I understand the header organization
>>> >> system well enough, let me know if it belongs elsewhere.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks!
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Will
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > cfe-commits mailing list
>>> > cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alexey Samsonov, MSK