Message ID | 20240819213534.4080408-1-mmaurer@google.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Rust KASAN Support | expand |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:35 PM Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com> wrote: > > This patch series requires the target.json array support patch [1] as > the x86_64 target.json file currently produced does not mark itself as KASAN > capable, and is rebased on top of the KASAN Makefile rewrite [2]. > > Differences from v2 [3]: > 1. Rebased on top of the maintainer's cleanup of the Makefile. Andrey/KASAN: whenever you are happy with this series, assuming it happens for this cycle, do you have a preference/constraint where to land this through? I am asking since we will likely need the target.json patch for another series that may land this cycle too (Rust KCFI). I asked Masahiro as well what he preferred to do, e.g. if he wants to take everything (KCFI, KASAN, SCS) through Kbuild, that is great too. Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 4:20 PM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:35 PM Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com> wrote: > > > > This patch series requires the target.json array support patch [1] as > > the x86_64 target.json file currently produced does not mark itself as KASAN > > capable, and is rebased on top of the KASAN Makefile rewrite [2]. > > > > Differences from v2 [3]: > > 1. Rebased on top of the maintainer's cleanup of the Makefile. > > Andrey/KASAN: whenever you are happy with this series, assuming it > happens for this cycle, do you have a preference/constraint where to > land this through? I am asking since we will likely need the > target.json patch for another series that may land this cycle too > (Rust KCFI). I asked Masahiro as well what he preferred to do, e.g. if > he wants to take everything (KCFI, KASAN, SCS) through Kbuild, that is > great too. No preferences, feel free to take this through any tree. Thanks!
On 8/19/24 11:35 PM, Matthew Maurer wrote: > The notable piece of feedback I have not followed is in the renaming of > kasan_test.c to kasan_test_c.c - this was done in order to allow the > module to be named kasan_test but consist of two .o files. The other > options I see are renaming the test suite or creating a separate Rust > test suite, but both of those seemed more invasive than the rename. Let > me know if you have another approach you'd prefer there. If you're sending another version anyway, then it would make sense to mention why the file is renamed in the commit message of that patch. Alice