Hey Pedro, ASan is somewhat listed for „LLVM Optimizations“. A quick and dirty reference for UEFI UBSan can be found here: https://github.com/acidanthera/OpenCorePkg/tree/master/Library/OcGuardLib
I don’t think you need to strictly adhere to the UEFI spec for debug tooling. I cannot check the code now, but I can imagine things like ConvertPointer() will not be happy about non-identity-mapping OOTB. But the issues I can think of should be fairly easy to resolve. Best regards, Marvin > On 24. Mar 2022, at 23:32, Pedro Falcato <pedro.falc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi! > > I've been thinking about adding sanitizer support (UBSan and KASAN), like > coreboot already has, to the wiki's Tasks for the upcoming GSoC, but I'm a > bit confused by something. > Is there anything in the UEFI spec that stops us from doing non-identity > memory mappings? I know it specifies the need for the identity mappings (in > the architectures where it requires the MMU being enabled), but nowhere do I > see anything about the other parts of the address space. > Of course, UEFI supporting AddressSanitizer would be kind of dependent on > fancier memory mappings. > > Thanks, > Pedro > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#88027): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/88027 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/90010978/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
