Add more UBSan rules to the production build #404

New issue

Open

opened 2024-06-19 03:57:49 +00:00 by jade · 0 comments

jade commented

2024-06-19 03:57:49 +00:00

Owner

We can make more behaviours defined by going harder on the UBSan no-runtime stuff we already have for signed overflow.

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#available-checks

Stuff like:

return
returns-nonnull-attribute
shift
integer-divide-by-zero
enum
nullability-* (cuz we don't use it yet!)
unreachable
vla-bound

I would guess that you can probably enable that entire list in one shot and it probably would not have any perf impact (benchmarks required though).

Potentially more expensive (but would be really good) checks:

bounds
bool

Unsure which of these are supported by gcc, but at this point I just want at least some part of the fleet of users to have better checking because it will find bugs eventually!

We can make more behaviours defined by going harder on the UBSan no-runtime stuff we already have for signed overflow. https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#available-checks Stuff like: - return - returns-nonnull-attribute - shift - integer-divide-by-zero - enum - `nullability-*` (cuz we don't use it yet!) - unreachable - vla-bound I would guess that you can probably enable that entire list in one shot and it probably would not have any perf impact (benchmarks required though). Potentially more expensive (but would be really good) checks: - bounds - bool Unsure which of these are supported by gcc, but at this point I just want at least some part of the fleet of users to have better checking because it will find bugs eventually!