teak-llvm/compiler-rt/test/shadowcallstack/overflow.c
Vlad Tsyrklevich 2e1479e2f2 Delete x86_64 ShadowCallStack support
Summary:
ShadowCallStack on x86_64 suffered from the same racy security issues as
Return Flow Guard and had performance overhead as high as 13% depending
on the benchmark. x86_64 ShadowCallStack was always an experimental
feature and never shipped a runtime required to support it, as such
there are no expected downstream users.

Reviewers: pcc

Reviewed By: pcc

Subscribers: mgorny, javed.absar, hiraditya, jdoerfert, cfe-commits, #sanitizers, llvm-commits

Tags: #clang, #sanitizers, #llvm

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59034

llvm-svn: 355624
2019-03-07 18:56:36 +00:00

38 lines
946 B
C

// Test that a stack overflow fails as expected
// RUN: %clang_noscs %s -o %t -DITERATIONS=3
// RUN: %run %t | FileCheck %s
// RUN: %clang_noscs %s -o %t -DITERATIONS=12
// RUN: %run %t | FileCheck -check-prefix=OVERFLOW_SUCCESS %s
// RUN: %clang_scs %s -o %t -DITERATIONS=3
// RUN: %run %t | FileCheck %s
// On aarch64 we just load the return address from the shadow call stack so we
// do not expect to see the output from print_and_exit.
// RUN: %clang_scs %s -o %t -DITERATIONS=12
// RUN: %run %t | FileCheck %S/overflow.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "minimal_runtime.h"
void print_and_exit(void) {
// CHECK-NOT: Stack overflow successful.
// OVERFLOW_SUCCESS: Stack overflow successful.
scs_fputs_stdout("Stack overflow successful.\n");
exit(0);
}
int scs_main(void)
{
void *addrs[4];
for (int i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; i++)
addrs[i] = &print_and_exit;
scs_fputs_stdout("Returning.\n");
return 0;
}