public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13/14 Regression] address sanitize and returns_twice causes an ICE
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:02:14 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-112709-4-IPVqHT9jpe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-112709-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112709

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Thinking about it, I'd say this should be instrumented differently between asan
and ubsan.  ubsan, which ought to just check whether the pointer is non-NULL
and properly aligned, should instrument it in the caller, so for returns_twice
on all the edges but the abnormal from .ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER, if there is just
one such edge, emit it on that edge, if there are multiple, split the block,
add PHIs and move the .ABNORMAL_DISPATCHER edge.  Because the function isn't
called for the second time actually, the argument where to store it to will be
the same in both cases.
For asan this is different, while the address to which the result is stored
will be the same, the memory might be poisoned in between, so I think we want
to instrument that on the callee side when storing into RESULT_DECL.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-08 17:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-11-25  5:43 [Bug tree-optimization/112709] New: ICE verify_flow_info failed during GIMPLE pass: asan0 iamanonymous.cs at gmail dot com
2023-11-25 19:53 ` [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13/14 Regression] address sanitize and returns_twice causes an ICE pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-27 12:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-27 13:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-07 21:01 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-08 17:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-03-08 17:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-08 17:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-12 10:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-12 13:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-13  8:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-13  8:20 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 14:15 ` [Bug sanitizer/112709] [13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 23:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-15 23:29 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-18 14:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-112709-4-IPVqHT9jpe@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).