[PATCH] Protection against stack-based memory corruption errors using SafeStack

[Kostya Serebryany]

> My concern is that IR may look OK in the tests, but further passes or the ISA-specific lowering could leak the safe stack's location.


Of course. That's why we have full runnable tests.

> > I'm also not sure small tests cover the entirety of what we'd want to test, especially when we consider what the optimizer can do.

> 


Agree.
I don't see a simple solution here (same for, e.g. CFI instrumentation).
We'd need to ask other experts to try to break this protection.

We may also try building something huge (chromium) and performing static binary code analysis.
That's well outside of what we can do with unit tests..

> Agreed the tests are useful! I'm just not sure they're sufficient.





http://reviews.llvm.org/D6094

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/