similar to: [LLVMdev] SAFECode testsuite query

On 2/26/15 9:54 AM, Jyoti Rajendra Allur wrote: > Hello All, > I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. Are you looking for an off-the-shelf tool, or are you looking for approaches to use in your own tool? > I could come up with the following that are not provided in

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 :) > >

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

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

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

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

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

This is a proposal to create memory safety instrumentation and optimization passes for LLVM. Abstract: The goal of this project is to modify SAFECode and AddressSanitizer (ASAN) to use a common set of memory safety instrumentation and optimization passes to increase code reuse. These tools and other similar ones use varying methods to detect whether memory accesses are safe, but are fundamentally

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

I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit differently. This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN or SAFECode and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things like - this access can not go out of buffer bounds - this access can not touch free-ed memory - this access can not participate in a race - this read

On 4/6/12 12:50 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > I'd like some similar work to be done, although I view it a bit > differently. > This might be a separate analysis pass that knows nothing about ASAN > or SAFECode > and appends metadata nodes to memory access instructions saying things > like This is a good idea but is the wrong way to implement the idea. LLVM passes are

Hi, I'm a student who is going to make a countermeasure for dangling pointers in c for his thesis. I need to make my source transformation using llvm. Nobody in my university already used LLVM. I already read a some documentation about llvm but i'm still lost. Do there exist some " examples/Tutorials" for making small source transformations. Or is there somebody who can help

Hello, I have tried a lot fix this error but am not able to can you please find me a solution am trying to compile the SAFECode in Cygwin Environment to work for windows. used make -j4 command to make the files in cygwin i have got this error make[5]: Leaving directory '/home/uidr7475/Work/LLVM_OBJ/projects/safecode/tools/clang/include' /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat

Hi everyone, After spending 2 months on LLVM generally speaking and more specifically on security passes (ASan, SAFECode, BoundsChecking) I wanted to know if there were an available implementation of strictly fat-pointer based approach to enforce bounds? If not, I wanted to implement one. I think it is interessant to have such a tool available even if there are better designs (SoftBound does

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

The Secure Coding group at CERT has current job openings for knowledgeable Clang and/or LLVM developers. We have two (and soon to be three) ongoing research projects involving LLVM and Clang, with a need for significant development work. An ideal candidate would be someone who has multiple patches submitted and accepted across fairly diverse portions of the code base. The job postings are

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. Earlier you wrote: >> So the main idea of this new flag is not for debugging, but rather for production. >> This means

Hello, We've just released the first version of our LLVM-based address sanity checker: AddressSanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/). The tool finds out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs (the subset of bugs detectable by Valgrind/Memcheck); it consists of a LLVM compiler plugin which performs simple code instrumentation and a malloc replacement library. The main advantage of

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > 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. >

On 2/27/13 9:50 AM, Dean Sutherland wrote: > The Secure Coding group at CERT has current job openings for knowledgeable Clang and/or LLVM developers. We have two (and soon to be three) ongoing research projects involving LLVM and Clang, with a need for significant development work. An ideal candidate would be someone who has multiple patches submitted and accepted across fairly diverse