| Message ID | 20150216152059.GA51560@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer. OK for trunk?
There are many sanitizers, and for most of them I don't see why they would
be in any conflict with -mmpx, it is just -fsanitize=address and
-fsanitize=kernel-address.
So perhaps test instead if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS) != 0, and
better clear the flag_pointer_bounds after issuing the error, error () is
not a fatal function, so you need something sensible for error-recovery.
Jakub
On 16 Feb 16:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer. OK for trunk? > > There are many sanitizers, and for most of them I don't see why they would > be in any conflict with -mmpx, it is just -fsanitize=address and > -fsanitize=kernel-address. > So perhaps test instead if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS) != 0, and > better clear the flag_pointer_bounds after issuing the error, error () is > not a fatal function, so you need something sensible for error-recovery. > > Jakub I don't know all sanitizers in details. Code generated by some of them may be incorrect from checker point of view. Thus I just wanted to disable unexplored and untested combinations. Ilya
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:56:45PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > On 16 Feb 16:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > This patch restricts usage of Pointer Bounds Checker with Sanitizer. OK for trunk? > > > > There are many sanitizers, and for most of them I don't see why they would > > be in any conflict with -mmpx, it is just -fsanitize=address and > > -fsanitize=kernel-address. > > So perhaps test instead if (flag_sanitize & SANITIZE_ADDRESS) != 0, and > > better clear the flag_pointer_bounds after issuing the error, error () is > > not a fatal function, so you need something sensible for error-recovery. > > > > Jakub > > I don't know all sanitizers in details. Code generated by some of them may be incorrect from checker point of view. Thus I just wanted to disable unexplored and untested combinations. Shouldn't be that hard to write a testcase and test it. Most of the sanitizers just add code like if (some_condition) __ubsan_handle_... (); where from the POV of the program the __ubsan_* function reports or might report some problem, and optionally abort the program. That some_condition can be a check of the pointer value, shift count, divisor check, etc. Jakub
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..79ecb04 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr65044.c @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ +/* { dg-error "-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with sanitizers" } */ +/* { dg-do compile } */ +/* { dg-require-effective-target mpx } */ +/* { dg-options "-fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx -fsanitize=address" } */ + +extern int x[]; + +void +foo () +{ + x[0] = 0; +} diff --git a/gcc/toplev.c b/gcc/toplev.c index 99cf180..bf987c8 100644 --- a/gcc/toplev.c +++ b/gcc/toplev.c @@ -1376,6 +1376,9 @@ process_options (void) { if (targetm.chkp_bound_mode () == VOIDmode) error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported for this target"); + + if (flag_sanitize) + error ("-fcheck-pointer-bounds is not supported with sanitizers"); } /* One region RA really helps to decrease the code size. */