search for: usenix14

...that may be beneficial (for example, -fsanitize=function may > use this facility to create GOTOFF relocations in function prologues to > avoid creating dynamic relocations in the .text section to fix PR17633). > > Thanks, > -- > Peter > > [1] http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/acad/usenix14.pdf > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161018/f7fcec36/attachment.html>

...of references between objects where that may be beneficial (for example, -fsanitize=function may use this facility to create GOTOFF relocations in function prologues to avoid creating dynamic relocations in the .text section to fix PR17633). Thanks, -- Peter [1] http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/acad/usenix14.pdf

Hi, In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424 we've been discussing whether to insert control flow integrity checks in Clang or LLVM. The main challenge is that the checks need something like a string associated with each call, and there's currently no stable way to ensure that the string stays with the call. The current version of the patch does the checks with an intrinsic, but there's a

...also [1] which contains some discussion of precision. There are also ancillary performance benefits of this design. For example, if we lay out the type information near the virtual tables we can in some cases avoid an additional cache miss. Thanks, -- Peter [1] http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/acad/usenix14.pdf

> On Jan 29, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:22:48PM -0800, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> I've been working on a patch that implements the bitset attribute and bitset >> lowering pass. I'll see if I can send it out later today. > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D7288

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:22:48PM -0800, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > I've been working on a patch that implements the bitset attribute and bitset > lowering pass. I'll see if I can send it out later today. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7288 Thanks, -- Peter

...sed to implement a variant of CFI for indirect function calls (see section 4 of the USENIX paper), and that only works effectively with an LTO'd module. (We might end up adding native linker support for that or something similar as well.) Thanks, -- Peter [1] http://www.pcc.me.uk/~peter/acad/usenix14.pdf