This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.25 seems to have broken AddressSaniitzer Inbox x glibc x sanitizer x
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 15:53:39 +0000
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.25 seems to have broken AddressSaniitzer Inbox x glibc x sanitizer x
- References: <CAGQ9bdyZDj6gs6G3h2gQ2UyWVMHpuYi3SU0zyJKfGDumP3hJTA@mail.gmail.com> <bb5bec42-3dad-b064-4c74-ed54a96a7149@linaro.org> <bef28268-a86b-d573-185b-146b2f6a78c5@redhat.com> <a30bf9e8-cbea-66c2-d051-2ad31aae3c9d@redhat.com> <7f3d146c-7b91-c362-fb2f-561a08c7d239@redhat.com> <c9a6f035-6212-8b85-b0ea-85e3d92ad805@linaro.org> <980b324f-e8ff-4886-763c-dd8f29a94ede@redhat.com> <2748d850-3b28-b8da-4ad4-126c1253dbe2@arm.com> <4c4eb7e6-c683-639e-04dd-898687154fba@linaro.org> <596a3496-462d-2b56-0680-2e3d67de3e63@redhat.com> <CAGQ9bdxhhYk4vRCV47sA7_y=b-xE+Rgf+LegjvdH-Tv9bqiEsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQ9bdzWU2yiQqUpuAN-sB=Cxvc6aQW6JEfPDih9qRtV=T0VHg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1805082222190.32321@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAGQ9bdzwOirmESUEVAgNAg3kgVePCdqWrdmpYnz5W1UrP1P7WQ@mail.gmail.com> <f849e33f-69f6-a2fb-d604-b53011510416@redhat.com> <CAKCAbMgSyEwx_BscvCxhyjW9TPN4h+Y4nbvZceC=OGV=9HEpDA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 9 May 2018, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I wonder how far we could get with black-box testing. If the main
> glibc testsuite compiled and ran some programs with ASan enabled,
You'd need to have a configure test for whether the compiler includes
libsanitizer support. The tests would also need somehow to be structured
so that if an address space limit is set (on the system running the tested
glibc, not necessarily the same as the system running the compilers) they
end up as UNRESOLVED rather than FAIL (ASan requires a very large amount
of virtual address space).
> discussion? It might be redundant to what a buildbot that ran the
> entire testsuite under ASan instrumentation would accomplish, but it
Running the whole glibc testsuite under ASan might be hard anyway; it's
ASan's own tests I expect would be useful for more thorough testing with
new glibc.
A significant part of testing, which does however require running a bot,
would be that GCC keeps building, on architectures that support
libsanitizer, with the new glibc headers, since changes to headers are a
common cause of libsanitizer build breakage (as it depends on
implementation details of headers that are not public interfaces).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com