similar to: CFI error with binutils 2.27

Hi Rafael, I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was adjusted. So when I have something like this: .cfi_startproc Lfunc_begin175:

Joerg, Referring to your patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291172. / switch (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType()) {// // case ExceptionHandling::SjLj:// // case ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI:// // case ExceptionHandling::ARM:// //*isCFIMoveForDebugging = true;*// //*if (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType() != ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI)*/*/ /**/ break;/*/ // for (auto &F:

Hi, I just updated from r190763 to r191137 and started getting failures in generated assembly language when debug info is enabled. Here is the test case: // Compile and run for every target. // RUN: %ecc -g -o %t %s && %t // FAIL: %armecc -g -o %t %s && %armrun %t // FAIL: %armebecc -g -o %t %s && %armebrun %t // RUN: %i386ecc -g -o %t %s && %i386run %t // FAIL:

On 5 September 2013 19:27, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was

Interesting. File please? Thanks. On Sep 21, 2013 6:01 AM, "Richard Pennington" <rich at pennware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I just updated from r190763 to r191137 and started getting failures in > generated assembly language when debug info is enabled. Here is the test > case: > > // Compile and run for every target. > // RUN: %ecc -g -o %t %s && %t

If it thinks the symbol is in the BSS section, then it should never have tried to use .comm to emit it I think. On x86 it does not try to mix and match, which is why it works. AFAIK comm symbols are regarded as having no section, rather than being bss, so I think it's a bug in whatever code printed that .comm statement. I'll look into this tomorrow. > Eric Christopher

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an > unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF > emission. We currently have several approaches, neither of which is > great: > > 1. llvm-dwarfdump: the best approach when it works. But

Hi All, While working on some recent patches for x32 support, I ran into an unpleasant limitation the LLVM eco-system has with testing DWARF emission. We currently have several approaches, neither of which is great: 1. llvm-dwarfdump: the best approach when it works. But unfortunately lib/DebugInfo supports only a (small) subset of DWARF. Tricky sections like debug_frame aren't supported. 2.

2018-01-16 18:18 GMT+08:00 Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>: > On 15 January 2018 at 12:49, 陳韋任 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > > - CFI directives: > > > > This is for .eh_frame section. Basically all the targets insert CFI > > directives in FrameLowering, but I am not sure exactly when/where I > should > > do

I want to create an experiment to show the effectiveness of cfi : For example , I first need a program with vulnerability so that we can hijack its control flow; then I enforce cfi of llvm and we can't hijack its control flow. Do you have any advice for me? - mudongliang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Ask a simple question : I svn checkout compiler-rt in llvm/project. And I compile llvm through cmake. How can I make for all those testing files? make test? - mudongliang 2015-09-02 0:58 GMT+08:00 Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>: > Take a look at > > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.html > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html > > And the

>> Currently the only two targets that disable CFI are Hexagon and >> powerpc targeting BGP. Is that still correct? >> >> The current integrated assembler is working for PPC, no? > > Yes, and regardless, as far as I'm concerned, the BG/P is now dead. Cool. I have changed the BG/P in r203269. What about hexagon. Do we still need to avoid cfi instructions with it?

Currently the only two targets that disable CFI are Hexagon and powerpc targeting BGP. Is that still correct? The current integrated assembler is working for PPC, no? For Hexagon, it has been disabled since the initial checkin. There is still no support for cfi? Thanks, Rafael

2015-09-01 11:38 GMT+08:00 John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com>: > On 8/31/15 10:43 PM, 慕冬亮 via llvm-dev wrote: > > I want to create an experiment to show the effectiveness of cfi : > For example , > I first need a program with vulnerability so that we can hijack its > control flow; > > then I enforce cfi of llvm and we can't hijack its control flow. > >

Hi, I’m working on setting up ThinLTO+CFI for a C application which uses a lot of function pointers. While functionally it appears stable, it’s performance is significantly degraded, to the tune of double digit percentage points compared to regular LTO+CFI. Looking into possible causes I see that under ThinLTO+CFI iCall type checks almost always generate jump table entries for indirect calls,

Hi, I would like to propose extending the Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) mechanism in LLVM/Clang with a feature that allows users to explicitly link classes that have no inheritance link. Usually, if one class is used at locations in code where this class is not expected, this will create a CFI error at runtime, assuming the application is built with CFI enabled. However, in cases where the user

I watched Teresa’s talk on ThinLTO from last year’s CppCon, and it sounded like adding global variable information to the summaries was in the works, or at least in planning. Can someone (Teresa?) please share the current status? If it’s part of future plans, are there any specific proposals that can be picked up and worked on? Thanks! > On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:51 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev

Hi, this is a proposal for the implementation of CFI-icall [1] with ThinLTO. Jumptables are generated in the merged module. To generate a jumptable, we need a list of functions with !type annotations, including (in non-cross-dso mode) external functions. Unfortunately, LLVM IR does not preserve unused function declarations, and we don’t want to copy the actual function bodies to the merged

Hi, I am using clang++3.9 to build a simple program with both CFI and safe-stack. I am getting linker errors when combining -fsanitize=safe-stack, -fsanitize=cfi, and -fno-sanitize-trap=all. Combining safe-stack and CFI without -fno-sanitize-trap=all works as expected. It looks like clang is attempting to link in two compiler-rt libraries, one for ubsan and one for safestack, and this causes

Hi Kostya, Please find attached the minimized motivation test. I hope it is minimized enough. If not please let me know so I can try to make it more minimal. Were you expecting something like this? Also I think the tests that I should provide along with the patch should be in a special format right? I think I should be looking at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#test-cases, and