Skip to content

fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia #159873

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

Open
PiJoules wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia #159873

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
1f0d368
fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia
PiJoules Jul 24, 2026
e717aa8
Remove the x86_64-unknown-fuchsia checks from
PiJoules Aug 26, 2026
d993f4d
Reintroduce x86 fuchsia into the test and instead opt out of sanitizing
PiJoules Aug 27, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/targets/x86_64_unknown_fuchsia.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ pub(crate) fn target() -> Target {
base.features = "+cmpxchg16b,+lahfsahf,+popcnt,+sse3,+sse4.1,+sse4.2,+ssse3".into();
base.max_atomic_width = Some(128);
base.stack_probes = StackProbeType::Inline;
base.supported_sanitizers = SanitizerSet::ADDRESS | SanitizerSet::CFI | SanitizerSet::LEAK;
base.supported_sanitizers =
SanitizerSet::ADDRESS | SanitizerSet::CFI | SanitizerSet::LEAK | SanitizerSet::SAFESTACK;
base.default_sanitizers = SanitizerSet::SAFESTACK;
base.supports_xray = true;

Target {
Expand Down
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs
View file
Open in desktop

@adwinwhite adwinwhite Aug 27, 2026 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So __stack_chk_fail is optimized away if we have safe stack on?

Rather than remove testing for stack protector support, would it be better to mark the function with #[sanitize(safestack = "off")]?

View changes since the review

@PiJoules PiJoules Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So __stack_chk_fail is optimized away if we have safe stack on?

Specifically it's never emitted since the safestack machinery would move all stack references to the unsafe stack so the current safe stack wouldn't need the normal stack protector instrumentation.

Rather than remove testing for stack protector support, would it be better to mark the function with #[sanitize(safestack = "off")]?

Yeah I think that also works

@PiJoules PiJoules Aug 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apparently safestack wasn't a valid option for that macro, but #161888 should make it one

@adwinwhite adwinwhite Aug 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you also add a comment on the sanitize attribute that we only do this because we can't disable default sanitizers via compile-flags?

Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -185,6 +185,7 @@ extern crate minicore;
use minicore::*;

#[no_mangle]
#[sanitize(safestack = "off")]
pub fn foo() {
// CHECK: foo{{:|()}}

Expand Down
Loading