This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?
On 1/14/20 1:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
seems to be what they emit on x86_64. Now, wonder what they do on other
Other targets are not supported :P
, and how does it play with all the other options that add stuff
to the start of functions, e.g. -fcf-protection=full (where it needs to
really start with endbr64 instruction)
Using the options one will get:
_Z4savev: # @_Z4savev
.long 846595819 # 0x327606eb
So endbr64 is placed after the RTTI record.
Which is wrong, this will then fail on CET hardware.
Sure, which is a minor limitation. FCF is supposed to be production
security feature while UBSAN is more for a testing playground.