public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/94307] Provide a way to declare the *SAN exception handler -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:28:28 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-94307-4-kMaNvPopYF@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-94307-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94307 Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed| |2020-03-25 Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Kees Cook from comment #0) > Instead of unconditionally calling __builtin_trap() for > -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error it would help the Linux kernel's use of > UBSAN to have a way to specify the trap function. With that, Linux can use > its own internal exception handling routines and avoid various confused > states: Sure, that's definitely possible. > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20200324164433.qusyu5h7ykx3f2bu@treble/ > > For example something like -fsanitize-undefined-trap-function=__ubsan_trap > and "__ubsan_trap" can then be defined by the kernel itself. Using the > standard handler routines (__ubsan_handle_*) are too heavy duty for some > builds, so a regular trap is needed for the kernel, but this allows us to > provide a "continue anyway" option as well. I would rather add something like -fsanitize-undefined-handler=[runtime,trap,handler] where - runtime would call current __ubsan_handle_* - trap would result in ud2 - handler - can be call to __ubsan_trap Where I can imagine it will call 2 versions (__ubsan_trap and __ubsan_trap_no_return). That will depend on -fsanitize-recovery=.. I can do a patch for GCC 11.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-25 9:28 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-03-24 18:17 [Bug sanitizer/94307] New: " kees at outflux dot net 2020-03-25 7:35 ` [Bug sanitizer/94307] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-03-25 9:28 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2020-03-25 9:28 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-03-25 9:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-03-31 5:02 ` kees at outflux dot net 2020-03-31 7:45 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-04-06 11:23 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-04-20 9:31 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-05-15 11:32 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2020-07-28 10:24 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-27 11:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-28 7:04 ` rguenth 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-94307-4-kMaNvPopYF@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: linkBe 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).