This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Backporting KAsan patches to 4.9 branch
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Yury Gribov <y dot gribov at samsung dot com>
- Cc: gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, Konstantin Khlebnikov <k dot khlebnikov at samsung dot com>, Andrey Ryabinin <a dot ryabinin at samsung dot com>, Viacheslav Garbuzov <v dot garbuzov at samsung dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:57:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: Backporting KAsan patches to 4.9 branch
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <541AA9ED dot 6040705 at samsung dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 01:46:21PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Kernel Asan patches are currently being discussed in LKML. One of the points
> raised during review was that KAsan requires GCC 5.0 which is presumably
> unstable (e.g. compilation of kernel modules has been broken for two months
> due to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61848).
> Would it make sense to backport Kasan-related patches to 4.9 branch to make
> this feature more accessible to kernel developers? Quick analysis showed
> that at the very least this would require
> * r211091 (BUILT_IN_ASAN_REPORT_LOAD_N and friends)
> * r211092 (instrument unaligned accesses)
> * r211713 and r211699 (New asan-instrumentation-with-call-threshold
> * r213367 (initial support for -fsanitize=kernel-address)
> and also maybe ~10 bugfix patches.
> Is it ok to backport these to 4.9? Note that I would discard patches for
> other sanitizers (UBsan, Tsan).
I'd say so, if it doesn't need any library changes (especially not any ABI
visible ones, guess bugfixes could be acceptable).
What asan related patches are still pending review (sorry for missing some)?
Do we have any known regressions in 5 from 4.9? Those would need to be