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 EAEDA3858412; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:35:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EAEDA3858412
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711010107;
	bh=vDS0aADJ5EyRVYjQCW2gQEmvCLIli7Vyq8Vyk7aEi1M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mf4yg/fR8LHo6RpA4LU497QDRsSusmlTCEKQ5Gk+Ru9BU/54cHCWgz4L1t0YwKmWk
	 7rJ4jhTPOaHlTrQvrXLjPwRVBHyt+HfkAqOWECR/XQssgvVnGRIoXDUAou5U7UIC4v
	 NyZHV093YHi8SFeNRbhTsyHzW0cXk1GdtbwqHh/M=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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 08:35:03 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-tZQ9yENHHd@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 #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:

> 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 with
> ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC_P check.

It might be that the DECL_THREAD_LOCAL_P handling is similarly broken
in that

int foo (int *p)
{
  return *p;
}

is instrumented even when p is a pointer to thread local storage?  But
maybe that works fine and it handled in the runtime.  But of course
the runtime can't handle non-generic address-spaces at all unless
we can convert all those addresses to ones in the generic address-space
(given suitable overlap of course).

> However, ASAN should back off from annotating *any* gs: prefixed address.=
=20
>=20
> I'll test your patch from Comment #13 ASAP.=