[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-28 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > j[5][1].h is 36 after the end of a array, that is definitely too far. Yes. Just a small note that clang emits there a bit bigger red-zone: =>0x801c50a0: 00

[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-28 Thread shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 --- Comment #4 from Li Shaohua --- @Jakub, I agree with you that the above test case may access too far from the red zone. However, for the below test case, I cannot figure out why -O0 again did not report anything. As a user, I would think that

[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-27 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think that is just misunderstanding on how ASan works and what it can protect. It adds red zone around vars, so that access right after end of var or before start of var is reported. But the red zone is qu

[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-27 Thread shaohua.li at inf dot ethz.ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 --- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua --- Yeah, I've tried that fix. It didn't fix the issue though.

[Bug sanitizer/105405] missed buffer-overflow in -O0

2022-04-27 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105405 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|