[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: address/leak sanitizer, somebody?
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:59:40 +0200
User-agent: Notmuch/0.9-101-g81dad07 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (i586-pc-linux-gnu)


On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:03:46 +0200, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> 
> Samuel Thibault, le Tue 14 Apr 2015 15:08:51 +0200, a écrit :
> > For work I've been having a look at -fsanitize in gcc.  It's not as
> > powerful as valgrind, but it should provide very good feedback, and
> > apart from tsan, it seems to be very easy to port to other systems
> > (basically tell the ucontext layout, the rest is mostly glibc-generic
> > actually), could somebody have a look?
> Apparently asan (address sanitizer) is 64bit only, but lsan (memory
> leak) seems to be 32bit too.

When I had a (really quick) look, years ago,
<http://darnassus.sceen.net/~hurd-web/open_issues/_san/>, I
found/declared that »[p]orting these to the Hurd is not a trivial task,
for they have intimate knowledge about the operating system kernel
they're running on, and from a first look they reimplement a lot of glibc
by directly using system calls -- which is basically a no-go on GNU
Hurd«.  Well, maybe not a "no-go", but if my "analysis" is still correct,
we'd need to add a lot of wrapper code, to call back into the "real" libc
(instead of doing system calls).

That said, I'd be very happy about such a port, of course.  Preferably
this should be done directly upstream, that is, in the LLVM repository.
(Which will then be merged in GCC.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]