From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-412630-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26164 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2013 15:34:07 -0000
Received: (qmail 24815 invoked by uid 48); 18 Jan 2013 15:33:35 -0000
From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/55975] asan does not work with 46 bit address space on PowerPC64
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55975-4-AwAG5IHDDs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55975-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55975-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01749.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975

--- Comment #21 from Kostya Serebryany <kcc at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-18 15:33:33 UTC ---
While we are at it... 
It is possible to use zero shadow offset of powerpc somehow? 

on x86_64 linux, when I build the code with -fPIC -pie
the mapping looks like this: 

7fb6dda49000-7fb6ddbfe000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 1208459                   
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc-2.15.so
...
7fff01eba000-7fff01edb000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0                         
[stack]
7fff01f15000-7fff01f16000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0                          [vdso]
ffffffffff600000-ffffffffff601000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0                 
[vsyscall]

which allows us to occupy 16T of memory starting from zero for the shadow. 

On my power pc box, however, I get this mapping: 
36ec0000-36ed0000 r-xp 00000000 08:02 3213429                           
/tmp/a.out
36ed0000-36ee0000 rw-p 00000000 08:02 3213429                           
/tmp/a.out
fff7f360000-fff7f370000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 
...
fffe70d0000-fffe7100000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0                           
[stack]

So, I can't use zero-based shadow. 

On x86_64 using zero-based shadow gives 5% speedup. It's worth trying on ppc as
well, I think.