This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Backporting KAsan patches to 4.9 branch

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Yury Gribov <> wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 01:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> ...
>>> 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).
> Finally got time to look into this. I've successfully backported 22 patches
> to 4.9:
> * bugfixes (12 patches)
> * install Asan headers (1 patch)
> * libsanitizer merge (1 patch) - this is questionable, see below for
> discussion
> * instrumentation with calls (1 patch)
> * optimize strlen instrumentation (1 patch)
> * move inlining to sanopt pass (2 patches)
> * Kasan (2 patches)
> One problem is that for BUILT_IN_ASAN_REPORT_{LOAD,STORE}_N patch I need
> libsanitizer APIs (__asan_loadN, __asan_storeN) which were introduced in a
> giant libsanitizer merge in 5.0. In current patchset I backport the whole
> merge patch (and a bunch of cherry-picks which followed it) but it changes
> libsanitizer ABI (new version of __asan_init_vXXX, etc.) which is probably
> undesirable. Another option would be to backport just the necessary minimum
> (__asan_loadN, __asan_storeN). How should I proceed?

Backporting only __asan_loadN/__asan_storeN looks like the safest option to me.

> Another question: Should I update patch CL dates for backported patches? If
> not - should I insert them to CLs in chronological order or just stack on
> top of previous contents?
> -Y

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]