similar to: Recent clang regressions

I get some failing tests from compiler-rt. FAIL: cfi :: cross-dso/stats.cpp (30831 of 30893) ******************** TEST 'cfi :: cross-dso/stats.cpp' FAILED ******************** Script: -- /usr/local/google/home/prazek/llvm-build-release/./bin/clang -fuse-ld=gold -flto -fsanitize=cfi -fwhole-program-vtables --driver-mode=g++ -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso -fvisibility=default -DSHARED_LIB -fPIC

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc2. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. If all goes well, this will be the last -rc. -Tom

Hi all, I'd like to make a proposal to implement the new vtable ABI described in PR26723, which I'll call the relative ABI. That bug gives more details and justification for that ABI. The user interface for the new ABI would be that -fwhole-program-vtables would take an optional value indicating which aspects of the program have whole-program scope. For example, the existing

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, I am looking into Control-Flow Integrity for indirect function calls, implemented with jump tables. I want to step through the code that produces these jump tables in GDB. I have built clang and opt from source with debugging symbols. I believe this code lives in llvm/lib/Transforms/LowerTypeTests.cpp, but when I try to debug *opt* by running the command "run -lowertypetests cfi-icall.bc

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

Hey LLVM folks, I've run into an interesting assertion. In one of HardenedBSD's feature branches, we're working on integration llvm's Cross-DSO CFI implementation. Using Cross-DSO CFI requires building libs with LTO, which causes clang to emit LLVM IR intermediate object files rather than ELF intermediate object files. I've found that with lld, attempting to link LLVM IR

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for sending this out. A few comments below. > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Evgenii Stepanov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is a proposal for the implementation of CFI-icall [1] with ThinLTO. >> >>

Hey Peter, Here you go! https://hardenedbsd.org/~shawn/2018-11-28_reproduce-01.tar Thanks, -- Shawn Webb Cofounder and Security Engineer HardenedBSD Tor-ified Signal: +1 443-546-8752 Tor+XMPP+OTR: lattera at is.a.hacker.sx GPG Key ID: 0x6A84658F52456EEE GPG Key Fingerprint: 2ABA B6BD EF6A F486 BE89 3D9E 6A84 658F 5245 6EEE On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 05:30:57PM -0800, Peter

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Evgenii Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com > wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Evgenii Stepanov > <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> Thanks for sending this out. A few comments below. > >> > >> On

Hello Vic, I don't have a lot to add myself. I think that majority of the input needs to come from the OS stakeholders. My main concern is if it requires work on every platform to take advantage or avoid regressions then perhaps it is worth adding as an option rather than changing the default. Some questions: - Does this need work in every OS for correctness of programs? For example you

Greetings All, I was wondering what projects seem to improve the most from lld as a linker. It s seems to mostly be browsers and games but if someone has something else I would be interested to hear what. The site doesn't really talk about what projects improve the most so I would be curious to hear what does and even if possible why. Nick

Dear llvm developpers, I followed the tutorial to build llvm and clang provided here: https://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html The sources are in sync with subversion repository, and I ended up with more than 30GB of binaries in llvm/bin as shown at the end of this message. I assume I did something wrong, but I did not find any entry in the doc that helps me understand how to reduce the size of

Thanks for providing the patch! I got around to testing it this morning and it appears it fixes compilation, but produces a non-working system. I know that's kinda vague and I'll have more details soon, including sample binaries. I at least wanted to give a status update so you didn't think you were being ignored. Thanks, -- Shawn Webb Cofounder and Security Engineer HardenedBSD

Hey all, TL;DR: Moving RELRO segment to be immediately after read-only segment so that the dynamic linker has the option to merge the two virtual memory areas at run time. This is an RFC for moving RELRO segment. Currently, lld orders ELF sections in the following order: R, RX, RWX, RW, and RW contains RELRO. At run time, after RELRO is write-protected, we'd have VMAs in the order of: R, RX,

Jump table sections already have this prefix: ".text..L.cfi.jumptable.”, without forcing the name with setSection(). Is that good enough? > On May 1, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > I think we just need to change the section name for non-MachO object formats because "__TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions" is the default text

It's at this point where I think about filing a full bug report with llvm. Any hints before I do? On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:00:02PM -0500, Shawn Webb wrote: > It looks like this commit breaks CSU initialization with > statically-compiled applications. > > With a very simple application at [1], compiled with: > cc -g -O0 -flto -static -o pid pid.c > > The application