similar to: [LLVMdev] Shared libraries, msan and -z,defs

> What about creating an msan interface DSO for the purposes of satisfying -z > defs? The executable will always be searched first, so the interface DSO > could be empty or full of ud2a. I like the idea. The ideal solution would probably be for the linkers to have a --not-needed command line option that prevents the .so from going in the DT_NEEDED, but one with just stubs is probably

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >> What about creating an msan interface DSO for the purposes of > satisfying -z > >> defs? The executable will always be searched first, so the interface DSO > >> could be

I'm seeing some test failures for unit tests for msan (check-msan) happening in googletest, which I find weird. I'm on Arch Linux, with r342711. Below is one type of error that I see. The full log is 416MB (!) big. My guess is that those errors are related, but if anyone needs the full log, I'll provide it. Here is a reduced log from the end:

Hi, I'm seeming new regressions form 4.0.0 for mips big endian: DataFlowSanitizer-mips64 :: custom.cc DataFlowSanitizer-mips64 :: propagate.c SanitizerCommon-asan-mips-Linux :: sanitizer_coverage_trace_pc_guard-dso.cc SanitizerCommon-asan-mips-Linux :: sanitizer_coverage_trace_pc_guard.cc SanitizerCommon-asan-mips64-Linux :: Linux/getpwnam_r_invalid_user.cc

On 2/17/20 9:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Eric Blake: > >> I'm just now noticing that 'man ld' reports that you may pass '--audit >> LIB' during linking to add a DT_DEPAUDIT dependency on a library >> implementing the audit interface, which sounds like it might be an >> alternative to LD_AUDIT for getting a library with la_objsearch() to

On PowerPC we have a failing address sanitizer test when linking with LLD. The issue is that the symbol '__libc_stack_end' is resolved to an undefined weak symbol when linking with LLD but not when linking (with the exact same command/input) with other linkers. Tracing the symbol I see it is resolved to a definition in the dynamic linker as expected:

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 04:00:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:19:34PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I think what confuses me is that keep talking about a single binary, but > >> clearly there is this separate vddk DSO, and there is talk of plugins. > >> So it seems to me that multiple files are

I assume there are transitions between JITted code and native helper functions. How are you handling them? Are native functions MSan-instrumented? MSan is passing shadow across function calls in TLS slots. Does your TLS implementation guarantee that accesses to __msan_param_tls from JITted and from native code map to the same memory? On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov

I have verified that both TLS implementations indeed find the same area of memory. Anything else I could look for? On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > Yes, both JIT code and the native runtime are instrumented. I am under the > impressions that the the C library should guarantee that from the way the > relocations are

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 04:39:04PM -0700, Rui Ueyama wrote: > > I don't want to make Resolver to have a reference to input graph. The > point > > of this proposal is to separate input graph handling from Resolver and > > instead making Linker Context to do that task. >

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:19:34PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I think what confuses me is that keep talking about a single binary, but > clearly there is this separate vddk DSO, and there is talk of plugins. > So it seems to me that multiple files are involved already? nbdkit is a standalone binary that happens to be able to load plugins from a well-known path, eg

How is ccall() implemented? If it manually sets up a stack frame, then it also needs to store argument shadow values in paramtls. I don't think there is an overflow, unless you have a _lot_ of arguments in a function call. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > Also, I was looking at the instrumented LLVM code and I noticed that the

On 03.03.2018 13:10, David CARLIER via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi dear FreeBSD support, > > The turn of MemorySanitizer to get early support into FreeBSD. > > Kind regards. > I recommend to fix the failures in existing tests. Next enable MSan for sanitizer-common tests and fix the breaking tests on FreeBSD. How about TSan? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

The code for ccall looks right. Sounds like you have a very small range of instructions where an uninitialized value appear. You could try debugging at asm level. Shadow for b should be passed at offset 0 in __msan_param_tls. MSan could propagate shadow through arithmetic and even some logic operations (like select). It could be that b is clean on function entry, but then something uninitialized

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 05:29:32PM -0700, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I don't also understand if DT_NEEDED is related to this. DT_NEEDED is not > represented by input graph. And what is *recursive* processing of DT_NEEDED? Searching a symbol in a shared library according to ELF semantics means recursively searching in all depending libraries as well. Joerg

Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of the the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the origin shadow (or just a memset intrinsic?). On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > The @entry stuff is just a gdb artifact. I've been tracking this back a > little further, and it seems there's

Hello everybody, I've run into some strange behavior with memory sanitizer that I can't explain and hope somebody with more knowledge of the implementation would be able to help me out or at least point me into the right direction. For background, I'm using memory sanitizer to check Julia (julialang.org), which uses (or at least will once I track down a few bugs) MCJIT for the code

Yes, it would be great to get that fixed. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Keno Fischer > <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of > the > > the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 05:02:12PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 04:00:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Richard W. M. Jones: > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:19:34PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >> I think what confuses me is that keep talking about a single binary,