[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android

[Alexey Samsonov]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is a public interface. But ASan runtime (and test-suite) strongly
> depends on
> > the instrumentation pass in Clang.
>
> How do you feel about adding a runtime init check of a version number
> defined by asan_interface.h?
>

We sometimes bump __asan_init_vX function name for important incompatible
changes, that is, use
a link-time check. Not sure why we would need to maintain an ASan version
in public header.


>
> -Greg
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry for the slow replies.  I'm out on vacation this week.
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexey wrote:
> >> > If you want to test the sanitizer runtiume library "during
> development",
> >> > you should verify that it works with the Clang at hand.
> >>
> >> I want to test an implementation of libraries, not that clang links a
> >> library in its install directory.  We only need one clang test for the
> >> latter (not 100) and that test already exists in the clang test suite.
> >
> >
> > No. The test in the clang test suite only calls "clang -fsanitize=address
> > -###" and matches
> > the command Clang will call linker with. It doesn't verify that the link
> > will succeed, or that
> > the resulting binary would run and produce expected output.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Sanitizer runtime and the compiler are tightly
> >> > coupled, why would you want to test the former in isolation?
> >>
> >> They aren't that tightly-coupled though.  There's an interface and an
> >> implementation.  That interface rarely changes relative to the number
> >> of changes to the implementation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt/commits/master/include/sanitizer
> >
> >
> > This is a public interface. But ASan runtime (and test-suite) strongly
> > depends on the instrumentation
> > pass in Clang. The latter can define hidden experimental flags we are
> > testing. Instrumentation pass
> > and compiler-rt library depend on each other. There were _several_
> changes
> > in instrumentation pass
> > last week, most of which required a corresponding change in compiler-rt:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/commits/master/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt/commits/master/lib
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Modifying Clang driver for testing-only purposes, especially for
> testing
> >> > in a non-default
> >> > configuration doesn't sound good to me.
> >>
> >> Agreed and that's not what's happening.  The optional part is adding a
> >> -L flag to the invocation of clang within the compiler-rt test suite.
> >> If using the monolithic build, those flags are not added and clang
> >> finds the libs via its hardcoded '-L' flag.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yury wrote:
> >> > It's not that easy. Some tests require passing environment variables
> >>
> >> As Evgeniy mentioned, it's a short enough list of variables that you
> >> can whitelist them.  LD_PRELOAD, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, ASAN_OPTIONS, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Evgeniy wrote:
> >> > Greg, do you copy binaries to the device on %clang or on %run?
> >>
> >> %run.  Can you point me to a case where you needed to override %clang
> for
> >> that?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Both %run and my symlink approach add certain (yet undocumented)
> >> > requirements on the tests, but they should be 100% robust if those
> >> > requirements are followed.
> >> > Greg, do you copy binaries to the device on %clang or on %run? The
> >> > latter would miss shared libraries that are not executed directly.
> >> > Environment can be recreated on the device, my script attempts to do
> >> > it (for several whitelisted variables).
> >> > We don't preserve ulimit setting, I modified one or two tests to not
> >> > rely on that.
> >> >
> >> > I don't mind switching to a combined approach - copy to device on
> >> > %clang, and replace symlink hacks with %run.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>> We considered adding "%run" to all binary invocations,
> >> >>> but dropped this idea. I don't remember the details, but IIRC %run
> is
> >> >>> just not general enough.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> IMHO this is where simplicity of lit approach starts to fail -
> >> >> important
> >> >> information (environment variables, dependent shared libs, expected
> >> >> test
> >> >> status, etc.) is buried inside arbitrarily complex runstrings.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Y
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA
>



-- 
Alexey Samsonov, Mountain View, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140422/9c6bf10b/attachment.html>