vitalybuka wrote: > > However, please be aware that default for Asan is ON. Should Kasan default > > be OFF in the beginning? > > @vitalybuka I'm not sure how many users test a kernel exclusively in `-O0`, > but to those who do, I suppose defaulting this to ON could allow the > sanitizer to capture never-before-seen use-after-scope issues. > > With that said, I'm inclined to keep this defaulted to ON like normal ASAN. > Does this sound reasonable, or am I missing some negative side-effects that > you had in mind when posting this comment? Would it be worth mentioning this > change as a release note regardless? > > EDIT: I realize one detail I missed when I wrote the description of the PR. > The 'workaround' to get `use-after-scope` functioning with > `-fsanitize=kernel-address` for `-O1` and up before this PR involves adding > `-mllvm -asan-use-after-scope=1`. So by defaulting > `-fsanitize-address-use-after-scope` to ON for `-fsanitize=kernel-address` in > this PR, we'd actually be enabling UAS detection for all optimization levels > which may be new to those who haven't employed the workaround. I suppose from > that PoV, effects are a bit more far reaching than I initially though. I'm > still inclined to keep it ON by default if not to increase coverage, but > maybe I'm being optimistic that it wouldn't have negative effects elsewhere...
LGTM, I guess it's easy to add -fno-sanitize-address-use-after-scope into kernel build files if needed. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137015 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
