similar to: [LLVMdev] -fbounds-checking vs {SAFECode,ASan}

Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some questions. > The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with > AddressSanitizer

On 5/24/12 4:43 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Hi Nuno, > > I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some > questions. > The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with > AddressSanitizer and SAFECode, > so I am curious how would you compare the two existing tools with the > new one. Nuno's original goal (described in our

On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) I believe Nuno's goal is to prevent run-time exploitation of software. Nuno, please correct me if I'm wrong. And

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and > the > > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. > I'm > > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > >

Hi John, On 25 May 2016 at 16:11, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pierre, > > Stepping up a level, what is your goal in replacing calls to malloc() and > free()? Is it any different than what SAFECode, SoftBound, or ASan do? > That's a good question. I didn't knew about SoftBound until now, so thank you for the name =). Anyway here is what I

Hi, I am a final year French student doing an internship at the University of Portsmouth. As I was taking hands on AddressSanitizer I took a look at BoundsChecking (both are in the lib/Transforms/Instrumentation folder). I found nothing on it except for the LLVM Documentation and references to BaggyBoundsCheck (which is not the same project. As far as I understood it is part of the SAFECode

Hi everyone, I am having troubles but this shouldn't be hard to solve for many people here. I am beginning a runtime feature for the BoundsChecking pass and I want to replace the libc malloc&free. I followed the design of AddressSanitizer (Asan) and tried to use the INTERCEPTOR macro from the interception.h file of compiler-rt library. Here is the problem. The file I modify

Hi Pierre, I'm the author of the BoundsChecking pass. It's true there's little documentation about it (only mentioned in: http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#availablle-checks). You can run it with 'clang -fsanitize=bounds' or 'opt -bounds-checking'. The BoundsChecking pass, AddressSanitizer and BaggyBoundsCheck are all different code bases,

Dear Pierre, Stepping up a level, what is your goal in replacing calls to malloc() and free()? Is it any different than what SAFECode, SoftBound, or ASan do? Regards, John Criswell On 5/25/16 8:05 AM, Pierre Gagelin via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am having troubles but this shouldn't be hard to solve for many > people here. I am beginning a runtime feature for the

Hi Nuno, On 22 May 2016 at 22:33, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > I'm the author of the BoundsChecking pass. > Wow, I am happily surprised to have an answer from you directly! > It's true there's little documentation about it (only mentioned in: > http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#availablle-checks). >

Hello everyone, I have noticed that there is a BoundsChecking.c under lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/. I am wondering how to use this tool and which type of bugs it targets. Are the tool provide the same functionality with Address Aanitizer? Thanks a lot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, As far as I know, there is no MPX pass in LLVM (though the x86-64 backend already declares MPX registers and instructions). I wonder if anyone is currently working on the LLVM pass for MPX instrumentation, similar to Pointer Checker in gcc. If yes, could anyone elaborate on the status and accessability to other researchers? And if any help is needed? Prof. Santosh Nagarakatte, the author

On 3/30/12 1:08 PM, Raphael Ernani Rodrigues wrote: > Dear LLVMers, > > My name is Raphael Ernani, and I am doing my MsC at the Federal > University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. I have been using LLVM for a > while, and I would like to participate in this year's Summer of Code. > One particular idea, in your "open projects" page caught my eye, and I > decided to

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

Dear LLVMers, My name is Raphael Ernani, and I am doing my MsC at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. I have been using LLVM for a while, and I would like to participate in this year's Summer of Code. One particular idea, in your "open projects" page caught my eye, and I decided to write a proposal about it. The line that I liked in the page was "Create an LLVM

Hi， John Criswell！ You have said to me that SAFECode had not been maintained for several years, now I have submitted my proposal for updating the SAFCode project to the new LLVM APIs. If you are still interested in the topic and willing to guid my project, I will be very happy. Now I'm waiting for you comments. Here is my proposal:

I'm trying to get the this Fortran array bounds check to run on my code as my package has been rejected for failing this test. I read writing R extensions and it appears to run this test I should use a Makevars file with one of the following two flags depending on my compiler: FCFLAGS = -g -O2 -mtune=native -fbounds-check FFLAGS = -g -O2 -mtune=native -fbounds-check and store it in the src

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

Dear All, We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for

yiqiuping1986 wrote: > Hi， John Criswell！ > You have said to me that SAFECode had not been maintained for several > years, Just to clarify, SAFECode *has* been and *is* maintained (primarily by me). The release_26 branch in the SVN repository works with LLVM 2.6, and mainline is working (with some regressions) with the upcoming LLVM 2.7. You can subscribe to the SVA Commits mailing list