[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-28 Thread kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #9 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-11-28 14:00:53 UTC --- Correct. __asan_handle_no_return may loose some of the stack-buffer overflows. It is also used to handle clone case, where the entire stack should be unpoisoned. http:/

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-11-28 13:47:41 UTC --- If I understand it right, that clears all shadow memory corresponding to current thread's stack, rather than trying to figure out into which function it longjmps and clearing on

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-28 Thread kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany 2012-11-28 13:37:02 UTC --- Note that the LLVM implementation inserts a call to __asan_handle_no_return before every "no-return" call instruction.

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||howarth at nitro dot

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-27 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-27 18:06:58 UTC --- > For what purpose would any one avoid longjmp call, other than for > performance? > Under asan, performance already drops by 2x, so using calls will not hurt > much. > Of c

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-27 Thread konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #4 from Konstantin Serebryany 2012-11-27 17:52:02 UTC --- For what purpose would any one avoid longjmp call, other than for performance? Under asan, performance already drops by 2x, so using calls will not hurt much. Of course

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-27 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou 2012-11-27 17:44:06 UTC --- > Can they be lowered to regular setjmp/longjmp calls? > If yes, then the run-time library interceptor should take care of them. The purpose of __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_lon

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-27 Thread konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 Konstantin Serebryany changed: What|Removed |Added CC||konstantin.s.serebryany at

[Bug sanitizer/55485] probable false positive on __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp

2012-11-27 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55485 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|