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: [PATCH] Inline asm asan instrumentation

Actually I do not think that this is good idea to use constraints in a such
arbitrary way. By setting constraints user takes responsibility on himself.
So even if full inline asm support will be done one day, I do think that
checking memory constraints will be still exist. 
It is the same situation as with compiler warnings - sometimes they are
bothering but if you think you do not need them - just do not use them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jakub Jelinek [] 
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Marat Zakirov
Cc:; 'Konstantin Serebryany'; 'Viacheslav Garbuzov';
'Yuri Gribov'; 'Marat Zakirov'
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Inline asm asan instrumentation

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:33:44PM +0400, Marat Zakirov wrote:
> Here's a patch for optional Asan instrumentation of inline assembly.
> This version scans gimple for GIMPLE_ASMs and performs usual 
> instrumentation of arguments with memory constraints ("m", "o", etc.) with
fixed size.

That doesn't look right to me.  The fact that some region appears in "m"
doesn't mean the inline asm actually accesses it, it could not touch it at
all, or only some part of it.
If you look e.g. at Linux kernel headers, you'll see lots of struct
__large_struct { unsigned long buf[100]; }; #define __m(x) (*(struct
__large_struct __user *)(x)) ...
  "m" (__m(addr))
and similar cases, if Asan wants to check that the whole 100*sizeof(long)
region is accessible, it could often just have false positives, because the
inline asm really accesses just some small part of it.


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