similar to: LibFuzzer and platforms availability

r247321 refactors the code so that it should build on Mac. I haven't actually tested it on Mac -- so please help me and send follow up patches if needed. check-fuzzer will still fail because some of the libFuzzer tests require dfsan. I'd use some help from someone with a Mac to modify lib/Fuzzer/test/CMakeLists.txt so that it does not run dfsan-dependent tests on Mac. Thanks, --kcc On

FWIW see also http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-June/043301.html As far as I understand DFSan functionality isn't required for libFuzzer to work, so it should be safe to disable DFSan support on Mac. On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > +pcc , glider > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Juan Ceasar <juan.d.ceasar at

Afternoon, I had an issue with trying to link a program with the DataFlowSanitizer functionality, this is from the libFuzzer project, and I was seeing: clang++ -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=edge test_fuzzer.cc Fuzzer*.o Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "_dfsan_create_label", referenced from: fuzzer::TraceState::DFSanCmpCallback(unsigned long, unsigned

Kostya, I took a quick stab at patching libFuzzer for Apple, but so far I'm thinking something else is incorrect. Patch is attached but when I went to reproduce the examples, the toy example went fine, but with PCRE and Heartbleed I noticed the coverage statistics were pretty poor, and didn't find anything. Admittedly I moved onto Heartbleed pretty quickly so PCRE probably isn't the

Hi, I am starting a thread to discuss the design of DataFlowSanitizer, a compiler instrumentation based analysis tool which I am hoping to bring into LLVM. As a starting point, I have included the current version of the design document below. Comments are appreciated. Thanks, Peter DataFlowSanitizer Design Document ********************************* This document sets out the design for

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:00:46PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > Hi, > > I am starting a thread to discuss the design of DataFlowSanitizer, > a compiler instrumentation based analysis tool which I am hoping to > bring into LLVM. As a starting point, I have included the current > version of the design document below. Comments are appreciated. Any further comments on the

Hi all, I have some questions about "DataFlowSanitizer" from "compiler-rt". I want to know how I can test the "DataFlowSanitizer"? Can I configure it to label only some values, i.e, the return values from specific functions? Also, how can I print these labels? Thanks, Dareen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

So I was curious to start using the libFuzzer, but trying to follow along I got the following error: clang++ -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=edge test_fuzzer.cc Fuzzer*.o Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "_dfsan_create_label", referenced from: fuzzer::TraceState::DFSanCmpCallback(unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned long long, unsigned long

Hi, If there are no further comments on the design below I intend to commit my DFSan patches in a week. Thanks, Peter On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 06:13:49PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:00:46PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am starting a thread to discuss the design of DataFlowSanitizer, > > a compiler

Hi, This started as an off hand comment in [1] but this appears to be a real issue so I'm moving the discussion to the mailing list. In r270942 the time taken to run LibFuzzer's test became noticeably longer. I am building on * Arch Linux (4.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed May 11 22:21:28 CEST 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux) * I am building libFuzzer and running its tests like so ```

Reproduced, should be easy to fix. Will do it. And thanks for noticing, on my machine this fails very fast and the test passes because it sees everything it wants to see. --kcc On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > This started as an off hand comment in [1] but this appears to be a > real issue so I'm moving the discussion to the

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > Looks good, thanks! > > Can you write the test case, please? You probably have more experience > writing debug info tests than I do. > Sure - though how would I get the pre-dfsan .ll file to produce this behavior? I've tried compiling to a .ll file without dfsan, then feeling that .ll

Here's a basic patch which would solve it in sort of the same way as the other optimizations I was fixing (just special case the debug info & fix it up). I can work up a test case for this as well, or you can, if you like/this seems reasonable. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:20:55PM -0700, David

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:04:30AM -0700, David Blaikie wrote:

Hi all, Any one tried using DataFlowSanitizer on Linux x86_64? I tried on: 3.13.0-44-generic #73~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Dec 17 00:39:15 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux It assumes wrong memory layout and remaps application code segment as shadow memory, thus causing SIGSEV (Segmentation fault). Is this know? and fix under way? -Thanks, Aravind -------------- next part

Done. r271095 On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Reproduced, should be easy to fix. Will do it. > And thanks for noticing, on my machine this fails very fast and the test > passes because it sees everything it wants to see. > > --kcc > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: >

Hi Peter, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is the DataFlowSanitizer, and I don't

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:04:30AM -0700, David Blaikie wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and > > DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar > > functions (with the same name) to transform their type

Dear Developers, I am a Master's student at the ECE department of the University of Florida, USA.​​ For my research project, supervised by Prof. Mark Tehranipoor<http://tehranipoor.ece.ufl.edu/> and Prof. Farimah Farahmandi<http://farimah.ece.ufl.edu/>, I need to use Clang LLVM DataflowSanitizer library in KLEE. However, I have faced some difficulties (explained below) while

I am using pre-built LLVM/Clang 3.8.0 binaries on Ubuntu 16.04.2, 64 bit. I tried to lift a minimal program to LLVM IR, then link the IR to DataFlowSanitizer libraries to produce executable code. In the second step, the process throws a bunch of linker errors. ========================================= #include <sanitizer/dfsan_interface.h> #include <assert.h> int main(void) { int