This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org 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]

[Bug sanitizer/59454] blacklisting sanitized functions


https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59454

--- Comment #5 from Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> I'm pasting here Jakub's opinion which I agree with:
> 
> ```
> I'm strongly against the blacklist, that is not the way things are done in
> GCC, you have corresponding attribute to mark functions you don't want to
> instrument, people can macroize that with
> __typeof (symbol) symbol __attribute__((__no_sanitize_address__));
> But in any case, you mark it in the code rather than adding externally
> some symbol list.

Well, blacklists simplify integration of Asan to large codebases (e.g. full
Linux distro) where you often don't have the luxury of modifying the source
code. I believe was the main reason why they were added to Clang's sanitizer.

Just to double check, what are the technical arguments against using
blacklists?

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