Skip to content

Should we build UBSAN versions of our system libraries? #24261

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
sbc100 opened this issue May 5, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #24264
Open

Should we build UBSAN versions of our system libraries? #24261

sbc100 opened this issue May 5, 2025 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #24264

Comments

@sbc100
Copy link
Collaborator

sbc100 commented May 5, 2025

I just ran into a bug in wasmfs that I think UBSAN would have picked up. See #24257

It looks like we build libwasmfs as AsanInstrumentedLibrary, but we have no equivalent for ubsan
@dschuff
Copy link
Member

dschuff commented May 5, 2025

InstrumentedLibrary means when the user build is a sanitizer build, the libraries would be as well?

@sbc100
Copy link
Collaborator Author

sbc100 commented May 5, 2025

Yes.. although we only do that for asan and not ubsan today. There is no way to build system libraries with ubsan today AFAICT.

sbc100 added a commit to sbc100/emscripten that referenced this issue May 5, 2025
@sbc100
Enable ubsan versions of system libraries
d9b376b 
Fixes: emscripten-core#24261
This was referenced May 6, 2025
Open
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Enable ubsan versions of system libraries sbc100/emscripten
2 participants
@sbc100 @dschuff