search for: sanitizing

Mehdi, Teresa, Not sure if this is caused by one of your recent commits, or by someone else's, please excuse me if that's unrelated to your work... http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/builds/542/steps/check-llvm%20asan/logs/stdio ==26383==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco on address 0x000002ef41d8 at pc 0x0000009d1aa5 bp 0x7ffd0cd72b50 sp

David, Dean, all, The bots got red today with assertion failures in llvm::DbgVariable::addMMIEntry: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/1816/steps/check-msan%20in%20gcc%20build/logs/stdio I did not find the offender yet. Any ideas? clang-5.0: /mnt/b/sanitizer-buildbot1/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/build/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.h:131: void

Thanks! On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I give it 99% odds it was r302483. Let's revert and debug it tomorrow. > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> David, Dean, all, >> >> The bots got red today with assertion failures in >>

This morning I'm seeing 4 new sanitizer failures in SanitizerCommon-Unit (compared to a couple of days ago, when I didn't see these) - perhaps related to recent library refactoring? SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/DeadlockDetector.RemoveEdgesTest SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/SanitizerCommon.ThreadRegistryTest SanitizerCommon-Unit ::

Kostya, all, I'm trying to build my project by clang 3.8rc1 with enabled asan (clang itself is address sanitized) and it fails on several files from my project (ISPC, https://github.com/ispc/ispc). I've reproduced this on MacOS and Linux. Please let me know if you need any other info. How to reproduce: 1) Build address sanitized clang 3.8rc1: cd /path-to-working-dir svn co

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Greg Parker <gparker at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:06 PM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: >> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast while building llvm. >> Full details are available at: >>

The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. Rui, os someone, please take a look. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64- linux-bootstrap/builds/138/steps/check-lld%20asan/logs/stdio ==26011==ERROR: LeakSanitizer: detected memory leaks Direct leak of 184 byte(s) in 1 object(s) allocated from: #0 0x72fab0 in operator new(unsigned long)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. >> Rui, os someone, please take a look. >> >>

Thank you for the response. Suppose I want to make changes in the LLVM part of Address Sanitizer. Is there still a way to test the changes made to address sanitizer as a standalone. Also can a pass be run after Address Sanitizer Pass is ran, where I can access the variables created by address sanitizer [LLVM Code] so that I avoid making changes directly to the address sanitizer? On Fri, Mar

# Summary Currently the Sanitizer family of runtime bug finding tools (e.g. Address Sanitizer) provide useful reports of problems upon detection. This RFC proposes adding tools to 1. Parse Sanitizer reports into structured data to make interfacing with other tools simpler. 2. Take the Sanitizer reports and “Symbolicate” them. That is, add missing symbol information (function name, source file,

I use a call to the sanitize method every time I render some user input, but it would be much nicer if I could clean it up once before putting it into the database and avoid having to call the (relatively expensive) sanitize every time I render a page. My first thought was to just add something like: def message=(x) self[:message]=sanitize(x) end However, the sanitize helper cannot be called

The build for the Android sanitizers is unique in that it needs to link against the Android system libraries to create a shared object and its test suites. The current solution to build ASan is to drop the compiler-rt repo into the llvm source tree and cross-compile the llvm build for Android. This is a bit awkward for few reasons: 1) Not all of llvm can be cross-compiled for Android.

Hi all, Can anyone explain me what was the rationale behind putting the sanitizer libraries in compiler-rt? The sanitizers only work properly in x86_64 and I don't see anyone even testing to any other platform, while compiler-rt should be a substitute for libgcc on all platforms, at least that's the goal, and linking the success of the RT library to the success of the sanitizers is a bit

Haven''t been able to find a good enough answer on whether using sanitize() is enough to really protect me from XSS attacks I basically have a blog page that I want to allow people to display comments on but would like to allow html tags to be posted on the comments, these could html tags like the imageshack img tags, youtube player, photobucket img tags etc any other approaches or

Hello I am willing to make changes in Address Sanitizer for experimentation. But as I am a naive user I am confused with the fact that if I make changes to Address Sanitizer do I have to rebuild the whole LLVM. Could somebody please help me figure out a way in which I can make changes to address sanitizer and do not have to compile the whole LLVM. Aayushi Agrawal -------------- next part

I am guessing that sanitizers are not supported with static linking. The AddressSanitizer document says so explicitly but the others do not. Yet the interceptors use dlsym to set up certain system calls, so by definition they can't support static linking. Given that sanitizers won't work with static linking, why are static libraries created for them? Should there be an error check in the

Hi, On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 at 18:31, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > My 2c would be to push back a bit more on the "let's not have a machine readable format, but instead parse the human readable format" - it seems like that's going to make the human readable format/parsing fairly brittle/hard to change (I mean, having the parser in tree will help, for

Hi, Currently the first stage ("run sanitizer tests in gcc build") of the sanitizer-ppc64-linux1 buildbot is only failing because of: + cd clang_build + make -j16 check-lsan make: *** No rule to make target `check-lsan'. Stop. + echo @@@STEP_FAILURE@@@ @@@STEP_FAILURE@@@ + cd clang_build + make -j16 check-msan make: *** No rule to make target `check-msan'. Stop. + echo

How about tweaking the compiler-rt cmakefiles so that if lsan is not supported, the target check-lsan still exists but does nothing? I've attached a patch that does this. (I don't know much about cmake so there might be a better way of doing it.) Alternatively, can I change the zorg build script so that "run sanitizer tests in gcc build" doesn't try to run check-lsan etc

I''ve noticed that it is possible to pass javascript unaltered through the sanitize function using CSS. For example: sanitize( "<style type=''text/css''>body{background-image:url(''javascript:window.alert(1)'') }</style>" ) IE will execute the javascript. Firefox will not. I haven''t tried it with any other browsers.