search for: 2fasan

...nitizer?) - Should the asan run-time use cmake, or just make, or what? The build is a bit tricky, especially for tests. We currently use make. - How would you suggest to do the code review? The code of the run-time is ~5 KLOC. http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan The Apple-specific part may make some Apple experts cry (or maybe not). The code uses google's coding style, which is similar, but not equivalent to the LLVM's one. We check it using cpplint before commits. LLVM license is used. The tests are ~2.5 KLOC; most of the tests require...

...-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the >> fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. >> Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). > > Isn’t it this stage? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/2755/steps/stage2%2Fasan%2Bassertions%20check-fuzzer/logs/stdio To me it looks like just the compilation and the unit+regression tests ("ninja check-fuzzer", not even depending on clang). It also completes in only 10 minutes, which is not a lot for fuzzing. Michael

...the compiler-rt make build. > Yea, I may need your help, probably after the files are committed. > > > - How would you suggest to do the code review? > > The code of the run-time is ~5 > > KLOC. > http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan > > The Apple-specific part may make some Apple experts cry (or maybe > not). > > The code uses google's coding style, which is similar, but not > equivalent > > to the LLVM's one. We check it using cpplint before commits. > > I personally would like to s...

...is a reason for it to be as complicated as it is. I can help (and/or) do the asan integration into the compiler-rt make build. > - How would you suggest to do the code review? >    The code of the run-time is ~5 > KLOC. http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan >    The Apple-specific part may make some Apple experts cry (or maybe not). >    The code uses google's coding style, which is similar, but not equivalent > to the LLVM's one. We check it using cpplint before commits. I personally would like to see it be in LLVM style, but the re...

...eed your help, probably after the files are committed. No problem! >> >> >> > - How would you suggest to do the code review? >> >    The code of the run-time is ~5 >> > >> > KLOC. http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan >> >    The Apple-specific part may make some Apple experts cry (or maybe >> > not). >> >    The code uses google's coding style, which is similar, but not >> > equivalent >> > to the LLVM's one. We check it using cpplint before commits. >>...

Hi all, The blog entry [1] suggest that one of the buildbots constantly fuzzes clang and clang-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). Has there actually ever been a buildbot that fuzzes clang/LLVM itself? Another (obvious?) fuzzing candidate would be the LLVM's bitcode

...> complicated as it is. I can help (and/or) do the asan integration into > the compiler-rt make build. > >> - How would you suggest to do the code review? >> ? ?The code of the run-time is ~5 >> KLOC.?http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan >> ? ?The Apple-specific part may make some Apple experts cry (or maybe not). >> ? ?The code uses google's coding style, which is similar, but not equivalent >> to the LLVM's one. We check it using cpplint before commits. > > I personally would like to see it be in...

...the LLVM suite that exercise the functionality independent of any > runtime so that other developers can catch regressions. Also, unittests in > the LLVM unittest tree would be nice as well. > Currently, I have tests<http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fasan%2Ftests>that work only with the run-time library. I will definitely need tests that don't require run-time support. > > > Have you written a Clang patch to turn this functionality on and off? > Looking at the wiki documentation shows one thing that gives me pause: > you'...

Any updates on this? In particular, I'd like to see concrete patches proposed for review and inclusion into LLVM. I think having actual patches on the table and under review will help a great deal. Kostya, let me know if I can help prepare them. A few general comments as well inline... On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26,

...er, the actual bot [2] only tests the > > fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. > > Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). > > Isn’t it this stage? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/build > ers/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/2755/steps/ > stage2%2Fasan%2Bassertions%20check-fuzzer/logs/stdio > > > Has there actually ever been a > > buildbot that fuzzes clang/LLVM itself? > Yes, I used to run clang-fuzzer and clang-format-fuzzer on this bot, but not any more. The reason is simple -- the bot was always red (well, orange) and the b...