similar to: SafeStack on ARM platform

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'm building compiler-rt in a ppc64le machine and it is generating the sanitizers fine but it is not generating the builtin library. I tried to compile it in a x86_64 machine and I got the builtin library generated (libclang_rt.builtins-x86_64.a). Taking a look in a cmake config file from compiler-rt, I saw that ppc64 is not in the supported architecture list to generate the builtin

On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > ... > > My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction, > just like XOR or ADD, > so the overhead should be relatively small. > Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous. > And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has. > Do you have any measurements to

Hi Kostya, >On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch >> wrote: > >> Dear LLVM developers, >> >> We've applied the feedback we received on Phabricator on the SafeStack >> patches, >> > >Did you investigate the possibility of moving the transformation from >codegen to the LLVM level, i.e. the same level

+nlewycky On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch > wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov < > vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch> wrote: > > Do you think moving the pass to lib/Transform/Instrumentation but > > scheduling it during code generation would make sense ? If so, we'll >

Hi all, Shouldn't SafeStack pass be executed only if the target has TLS support? E.g. currently for NVPTX there is no way to implement `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr`. Any comments? Thanks, Samuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150623/53f40bea/attachment.html>

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive

Hi, I previously posted about using 32-bit X86 segmentation to harden SafeStack: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100346.html That involves lowering the limits of the DS and ES segments that are used for ordinary data accesses while leaving the limit for SS, the stack segment, set to its maximum value. The safe stacks were clustered above the limits of DS and ES. Thus, by

Hello, I'm in the process of creating a pass for the new PM for SafeStack which is only available as a part of the legacy PM. The only thing bugging me is in regards to the TargetPassConfig analysis. Whereas most other passes/analyses I have seen separate the logic between the actual pass and anything it does to the IRUnits it runs over are in 2 separate classes, TargetPassConfig has them

Hi, SafeStack currently relies on address randomization to protect the safe stack. If the location of a safe stack is somehow revealed and a corrupted pointer references it, then a safe stack can be corrupted. The creators of SafeStack envisioned the possibility of using X86 segmentation to further harden SafeStack against such corruption (see the comment near the top of

On 4 Nov 2014, at 00:36, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > You at least increase the memory footprint by doubling the stack sizes. Not quite. The space overhead is constant for each stack frame - you just need to keep track of the top of two stacks, rather than one. The important overhead is that you reduce locality of reference. You will need a minimum of two cache

With all the talk about using lld on the list, I thought it would be interesting to try using it in my clang based ELLCC cross compilation tool chain. http://ellcc.org The change was simple, since I use configuration files to tell clang how to compile, where to find libraries, etc. I described the config files here: http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=13246 All I had to do was change the linker

Hi all, I have a qemu-system-arm machine that I am currently starting using: qemu-system-arm -M versatilepb -nographic \ -hda img.qcow2 \ -net vde,vlan=0,sock=/var/run/qemu-vde.ctl \ -net nic,vlan=0,macaddr=52:54:00:12:34:22 \ -kernel vmlinuz-2.6.18-6-versatile \ -initrd initrd.img-2.6.18-6-versatile \ -append "root=/dev/sda1

Hi everyone, (Sorry if I'm asking at the wrong mail listing, but compiler-rt page tells I'd better write on llvm-dev rather than cfe-dev/cfe-users.) I've just built LLVM/Clang+Compiler-rt (Compiler-rt is put inside llvm/projects folder) and tried the -fsanitize option. But strangely the link failed since it cannot find *libclang_rt.san-x86_64.a*. The error message is as

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Richard Pennington via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > With all the talk about using lld on the list, I thought it would be > interesting to try using it in my clang based ELLCC cross compilation tool > chain. http://ellcc.org > > The change was simple, since I use configuration files to tell clang how > to compile, where to

Ah ha! I found crash reports: green-dragon-03:DiagnosticReports buildslave$ cat mmap_stress.cc.tmp_2016-01-19-231335_green-dragon-03.crash Process: mmap_stress.cc.tmp [95010] Path: /Users/USER/*/mmap_stress.cc.tmp Identifier: mmap_stress.cc.tmp Version: 0 Code Type: X86-64 (Native) Parent Process: bash [95004] User ID:

On 12/28/18 10:09 PM, Leonard Chan via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > > I'm in the process of creating a pass for the new PM for SafeStack > which is only available as a part of the legacy PM. The only thing > bugging me is in regards to the TargetPassConfig analysis. Whereas > most other passes/analyses I have seen separate the logic between the > actual pass and anything it

From: Marc Carino <marc.ceeeee@gmail.com> Let Xen recognize the Broadcom Brahma-B15 CPU by adding the appropriate MIDR mask to the initialization phase. Further, ensure that the console output properly reports the CPU manufacturer as "Broadcom Corporation". Signed-off-by: Marc Carino <marc.ceeeee@gmail.com> --- xen/arch/arm/arm32/proc-v7.S | 8 ++++++++

On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:11 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > I recently took a stab at changing the MacPorts llvm-3.4 port from the configure-based build system to the cmake-based build system. > > There are a couple of issues that I still haven't been able to work out yet and would like to know if these are just configuration issues on my side or bugs I should file at

I recently took a stab at changing the MacPorts llvm-3.4 port from the configure-based build system to the cmake-based build system. There are a couple of issues that I still haven't been able to work out yet and would like to know if these are just configuration issues on my side or bugs I should file at bugs.llvm.org: 1) libclang_rt It looks like the cmake build is missing some runtime