search for: unanalyz

...nderstand returns (conditional or otherwise). I'm not sure what the best way of dealing with this is. Should AnalyzeBranch be enhanced to somehow indicate conditional returns? Alternatively, the diamond conversion routine contains this: // RemoveExtraEdges won't work if the block has an unanalyzable branch, // which can happen here if TailBB is unanalyzable and is merged, so // explicitly remove BBI1 and BBI2 as successors. BBI.BB->removeSuccessor(BBI1->BB); BBI.BB->removeSuccessor(BBI2->BB); RemoveExtraEdges(BBI); should something similar be added prior to the calls...

...nced to somehow indicate conditional returns? I don't think that returns can ever be analyzable (since LLVM's CFG does not have a designated exit block). > Alternatively, the diamond conversion routine contains this: > > // RemoveExtraEdges won't work if the block has an unanalyzable branch, > // which can happen here if TailBB is unanalyzable and is merged, so > // explicitly remove BBI1 and BBI2 as successors. > BBI.BB->removeSuccessor(BBI1->BB); > BBI.BB->removeSuccessor(BBI2->BB); > RemoveExtraEdges(BBI); > > should someth...

...th assumes that the type system is going to lie, since C allows type punning. I'm pretty sure I can port that distrust to the LLVM IR version of the algorithm. It sounds like that would cover the examples you gave above, if I'm also appropriately pessimistic about the behavior of unknown / unanalyzed callers and callees. Maybe what I'll try is to add a flag to each vertex in the may-point-to graph, indicating whether or not the vertex's memory might hold additional, poorly understood pointers. Then I can let an appropriate amount of hell break loose in the analysis, if a piece of me...

...20 ee 9c ac 68 31 38 00 00 0030 02 00 0a 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 01 00 2b 06 01 04 0040 01 82 Note that wireshark stops dissecting after the cipherid of the first cipher at byte 0x3b (which is byte 0x181 of 0x187 of the packet), leaving six bytes unanalyzed. A redacted excerpt of the diff from the (good) SMB 3.10 to the (bad) 3.11 response: @@ -124,8 +124,8 @@ Security mode: 0x01, Signing enabled .... ...1 = Signing enabled: True .... ..0. = Signing required: False - Dialect: 0x0300...

Hi Louis, thanks for your reply. -<| Quoting L.P.H. van Belle via samba <belle at bazuin.nl>, on Wednesday, 2019-02-13 04:59:55 PM |>- > > DOM.AIN\foobar's password: > ^^^^^^^^ > > No dot is allowed in the NTDOM > Fix that first, then try again. That’s the output when logon succeeds though nor does the value seem to matter anywhere else. This is just Samba

I’m not sure I understand what you are suggesting in terms of how this should be handled. I agree that the cleanup code is unlikely to be complex, but obviously we still need some way to handle any cases that unlikely but possible. I hadn’t even thought about what might be in a __finally block. I was thinking about destructors being inlined. Obviously that puts a practical limit on what will

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > >> I tried to find some subset i felt was worthwhile and where it was > >> okay, but gave up after a while. > > > > > > I'm not quite sure which things you're referring to in that statement. > > Would you mind clarifying? > > You can try to ameliorate it

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10/9/2017 3:10 AM, Gaël Jobin via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi all, > > I got a silly bug when compiling our project with the latest Clang. Here's > the outputted assembly: > > tst r3, #255 > strbeq r6, [r7] > ldreq r6, [r4, r6, lsl #2] > strne r6, [r7, #4]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Michelle Strout wrote: > Those of us working on the OpenAnalysis project have been looking at > LLVM recently (excellent job on the website BTW). Thanks! I'm just one of the many people who have worked on it though, the praise belongs to them as much as it does to me. :) > This includes researchers at Rice, Argonne, and LLNL. Great! > John Mellor-Crummey

...There is your PHI node. In this case, LLVM knows that P cannot alias A (A is an automatic, P comes from outside of the function), so it promotes it to be a register with no problem (as it does with all of the other automatic variables as well). If you took the address of A, for example, and did unanalyzable stuff with it, it would leave it as an alloca, then perform traditional load/store optimizations to eliminate as many accesses to it as possible. If you have any particular examples you want me to run, I can certainly do that. Also, you can play around with the online web version of LLVM, her...

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:21 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2015, at 8:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ok folks, > > > > I wrote up the general high-level thoughts I have about stateful AA in a > separate thread. But we need to sort out the completely and horribly broken >

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Everyone, On October 31st, FreeBSD 5.3 and FreeBSD 5.4 will have reached their End of Life and will no longer be supported by the FreeBSD Security Team. Users of either of those FreeBSD releases are strongly encouraged to upgrade to FreeBSD 5.5 or FreeBSD 6.1 before that date. In addition, the FreeBSD 6.0 End of Life is presently scheduled