similar to: Enable Safe Stack for Baremetal?

Thanks for the update, Phillips. Yes, please add me, Stephen and Ana (CCed) to Phabricator reviews. Zhaoshi From: Mitch Phillips <mitchp at google.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 19:10 To: Zhaoshi Zheng <zhaoshiz at quicinc.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Stephen Long <steplong at quicinc.com> Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [MTE] Tagging Globals Hi Zhaoshi, Currently

hi-- I am new to R and try to use R cluster my binary data. I use hierarchical clustering plot (hclust (dist(x,method="binary"),method="average"),cex=0.1) I end up with a cluster Dendrogram. On the left of my dendrogram, there is scale called Height from 0.0 to 1.0. I don't understand what does Height represent. If the Height represents the distance scale between two

Not at this stage -- no. On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 3:23 PM Zhaoshi Zheng <zhaoshiz at quicinc.com> wrote: > Mitch, > > > > I forgot to ask: do you have any timeline on sharing it through > Phabricator? > > > > Thanks, > > Zhaoshi > > > > *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Zhaoshi > Zheng via llvm-dev

Hello, We're evaluating memory tagging (MTE) on some internal workloads. We noticed that stack variables are tagged by an instrumentation pass and heap objects are handled by the allocator (Scudo). How about global variables? We tried a simple case using -march=armv8a+memtag -fsanitize=memtag, but found no tagging: Are we missing anything or tagging globals is still in progress? int

Hi all, could someone tell me what this does mean "bad file descriptor" when trying to start asterisk. It goes till the CLI command and then die with this message. Below an strace output from asterisk -vvvvvvvvvc It's on debian Sarge kernel 2.6.7 with packages from debian VoIP team. The server was running fine till now with this version. Thanks

On 7.3.2019 23.37, A. Schulze via dovecot wrote: > > Am 07.03.19 um 17:33 schrieb Aki Tuomi via dovecot: > >>> test-http-client-errors.c:2989: Assert failed: FALSE >>> connection timed out ................................................. : FAILED > Hello Aki, > >> Are you running with valgrind or on really slow system? > I'm not aware my buildsystem

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

I can't get the simple program below to compile on CentOS 5 beta. It compiles (and runs) just fine on CentOS 4.4, and I'm using gettid() as described in the man page. I wonder if this is a problem with RHEL 5 as well, but I don't have a system to test on. I also wonder if this is a gcc 4.1.1 issue or something missing in CentOS 5. The issue is that the _syscall0 macro is not

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

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, 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

i install the wine 1.1.25 but after awhile installation stops and heres some detail in terminal > configure: libcapi20 development files not found, ISDN won't be supported. > configure: libldap (OpenLDAP) development files not found, LDAP won't be supported. > > configure: Finished. Do 'make depend && make' to compile Wine. > > cc -c -I. -I.

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 would like to use SafeStack sanitize option on ARM platform. Since Linux libc does not implement such functionality (in opposite to FreeBSD or Android), I need to use SafeStack compiler RT library. Unfortunately I've noticed that libclang_rt.safestack is not compiled/built for ARM platform. Looking into cmake file: "set(ALL_SAFESTACK_SUPPORTED_ARCH ${X86} ${X86_64} ${ARM64}

Hello, thank you for your suggestion, I can obtain just this from the backtrace: /[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]/ /Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1"./ /Core was generated by `dovecot/imap'./ /Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted./ /#0? 0x00007f44637bb1f7 in __GI_raise (sig=sig at entry=6) at

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is long thread, so I will combine several comments into single email. > > > >> - 8-bit per-thread counters, dumping into central counters on overflow. > >The overflow will happen very quickly with 8bit counter. > > Yes, but it reduces contention by 256x (a thread

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>

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 all How do I discover the MAC address of machines that are available just with only BIOS installed (no Operating System present). And I need to find the mac address of such machines that are up with just BIOS. How do i do image installations on * bare-metal *? Please Guide me. Thanks. Saravanan Sundaramoorthy Red Hat Certified Engineer http://www.google.com/profiles/dearsaravanan#about