From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-73646-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2582 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2016 07:51:28 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 2567 invoked by uid 89); 2 Oct 2016 07:51:27 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1003, shipped, eye
X-HELO: albireo.enyo.de
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>,  Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,  Yuri Gribov <tetra2005@gmail.com>,  Maxim Ostapenko <m.ostapenko@samsung.com>,  GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BZ#20422] Do not allow asan/msan/tsan and fortify at the same time.
References: <57CDAB08.8060601@samsung.com>
	<8d2403c8-466d-8f1a-e563-8b729deef9ce@redhat.com>
	<CAJOtW+5r0NQOHh1MKGSoCVyDto7LtJE7d3-oqJy-Yei6AECb8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<87lgyb9lhf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
	<CAJOtW+7xjtx=DxEOSnaPfpU708RdUJYLRX8prv0bFW=x47+tmA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160929100429.GQ7282@tucnak.redhat.com>
	<CAJOtW+5gnekVLcnUCrHWjYL1agspyZ-v_kOgEp8kyCrviGADJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160929104408.GR7282@tucnak.redhat.com>
	<CA+=Sn1mj83AL=XKinTbJDwOEEVReVFWTsbprKuVVMbsu=OdA7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN=P9pjzpygMJKjUDtkKxRn4+4BDG_wJ3qbQhehSJa5UenV6gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2016 07:51:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CAN=P9pjzpygMJKjUDtkKxRn4+4BDG_wJ3qbQhehSJa5UenV6gA@mail.gmail.com>
	(Kostya Serebryany's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:23:32 -0700")
Message-ID: <87fuofp4sq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2

* Kostya Serebryany:

> 80 interceptors to support *san and fortification is 80 too many, IMHO.
> The fact that other pre-compiled libraries use fortify by default is very sad.
> I think this is a clear case of misuse of fortify because now users of
> the library can't opt out.

If we had some libc-unfortify.so DSO, you *could* opt out.

> If someone is willing to provide a patch to sanitizers that is
>   * in sanitizer_common,
>   * uses a separate file for all of these 80 functions,
>   * does not touch any other file (in a significant way, at least)
>   * has tests
> I'll most likely accept it.

Why do you want to put this into sanitizer_common?

It would make more sense to maintain this inside glibc, so that it can
be updated in sync with fortification development.  We can keep an eye
on the ability to build the sources separately from glibc, to bridge
the time until this DSO is routinely shipped as part of glibc.