On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 12:25, George Popescu <georgepope@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:13:14PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 05:27:42PM +0000, George-Aurelian Popescu wrote: > > > From: George Popescu <georgepope@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > When the kernel is compiled with Clang, UBSAN_BOUNDS inserts a brk after > > > the handler call, preventing it from printing any information processed > > > inside the buffer. > > > For Clang -fsanitize=bounds expands to -fsanitize=array-bounds and > > > -fsanitize=local-bounds, and the latter adds a brk after the handler > > > call > > > > That sounds like a compiler bug? > Actually in clang 12 documentation is written that -fsanitize=bounds > expands to that. GCC doesn't have those two options, only the > -fsanitize=bounds which looks similar to -fsanitize=array-bounds from > clang. So I don't see it as a compiler bug, just a misuse of flags. Clang just allows to be more selective, but ultimately we want to cover as many bug-classes as possible. There is little point in giving up checks with Clang just because GCC doesn't implement them. If there are other valid reasons to give it up, that's fine, but so far it seems we never ran into the issue you ran into -- which is also a bit odd, because I do see in the instrumentation passes that fsanitize=bounds emits traps sometimes. [...] > > > ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS > > > - CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=bounds) > > > + # For Clang -fsanitize=bounds translates to -fsanitize=array-bounds and > > > + # -fsanitize=local-bounds; the latter adds a brk right after the > > > + # handler is called. > > > + ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG > > > + CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=array-bounds) > > > > This would mean losing the local-bounds coverage? Isn't that for locally > > defined arrays on the stack? > This would mean losing the local-bounds coverage. I tried to test it without > local-bounds and with a locally defined array on the stack and it works fine > (the handler is called and the error reported). For me it feels like > --array-bounds and --local-bounds are triggered for the same type of > undefined_behaviours but they are handling them different. Does -fno-sanitize-trap=bounds help? Thanks, -- Marco _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
