Re: Patch ping

[Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>]

DJ Delorie wrote:
> > >This is for the host libiberty only, and only when gcc is configured
> > >a certain way.  The intent is to have libiberty that is going to be
> > >linked into all the build and host tools instrumented, so that we
> > >actually catch bugs in libiberty or bugs in host/build tools calling
> > >libiberty functions as much as possible, but for the lto-plugin,
> > >which is dlopened by the linker which we don't have a control on, we
> > >need host libiberty without the address sanitization because
> > >otherwise it would only work properly if the linker itself has been
> > >address sanitized.
>
> So, if libiberty isn't built with sanitization, it would still*work*
> but not be instrumented?

That's my understanding. However, currently, without the patch the 
sanitizer is also used with the LTO plugin, which breaks the build with 
--with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan,bootstrap-asan.

Always building libiberty without UBSAN/ASAN even when the 
bootstrap-asan/ubsan option has been used, would be an option. However, 
if one also sanitizes libiberty, one has the chance to find bugs also in 
that library.

Tobias

PS: I found the out-of-bounds checking of ASAN and the integer overflow 
checks of UBSAN very helpful for the program I use at work.