[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

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.


> 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/d5cca713/attachment.html>