From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 064693858CD1; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:46:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 064693858CD1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711010792;
	bh=yKPDViXbwypTpZnYov6Y7fZ74loMtIvlJac3Cuq92l4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RrEzu1B/RGk1SXL6rPAZfy2qYbHMgUOPfwPP5wb00q+ydOmWMnnxBuKC5W+b0wy02
	 iTWEwyhDj47iYhE21pBio2oO4iVIUz3JKNArJL+vlmj7zdTTvU0K5GjrVexfnVDiAf
	 ZaHcumVDcUGjDvsYoPMiTiiS6dcAVc2veeanVk7c=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/111736] Address sanitizer is not compatible with
 named address spaces
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:46:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: addr-space, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111736-4-PM5mkWH8Wu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111736-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111736-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111736

--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #17)
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:
>=20
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111736
> >=20
> > --- Comment #16 from Uro? Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> > > The original testcase is fixed, appearantly slapping 'extern' on the =
int
> > > makes it not effective.
> > >=20
> > > Possibly better amend the
> > >=20
> > >   if (VAR_P (inner) && DECL_HARD_REGISTER (inner))
> > >     return;
> > >=20
> > > check though.  As indicated my fix fixed only VAR_DECL cases, there's
> > > still pointer-based accesses (MEM_REF) to consider.  So possibly even
> > > the following is necessary
> >=20
> > I must admit that to create the patch from Comment #11 I just mindlessly
> > searched for DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P in asan.cc and amended the location wi=
th
> > ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC_P check.
>=20
> It might be that the DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P handling is similarly broken
> in that
>=20
> int foo (int *p)
> {
>   return *p;
> }

No, that is not broken.  __thread/thread_local is something that applies so=
lely
to variables.  If you take address of a TLS variable, the result is a normal
address space pointer even if TLS uses separate address spaces.  Pointer to=
 TLS
var is e.g. on x86-64 load from %gs:0 with offset added to it, while load/s=
tore
of a TLS var is load/store from %gs:offset.
So, we actually wouldn't need to punt on DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P variables, we =
can
just check their addresses.
We actually don't insert red zones in between the TLS var, so doing it woul=
dn't
make significant sense.=