3 ms·
Address Sanitizer slows down execution a lot. It should only used for testing purposes, the same as -O0.
by netheril96 10y ago
Address Sanitizer slows down execution a lot. It should only used for testing purposes, the same as -O0.
- masterleep 10y agoWhat if you care more about unsafe pointer access than speed?
- anon1385 10y agoAddress Sanitizer isn't designed to be used in production. See this thread: http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q1/363 http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q1/363 ASAN is great at detecting many unintentional memory errors, but it's not designed to thwart malicious attacks. If you need a specific example of ASAN binary being exploited then see: http://int3pids.blogspot.ch/2015/04/confidence-2015-teaser-quarantine-write.html http://int3pids.blogspot.ch/2015/04/confidence-2015-teaser-q...
- AstralStorm 10y agoCorrect, but it still prevents a large set of attacks. Instead, we need an equivalent that is more focused on security than bug detection. CPI is the mechanism for the future with somewhere below 10% overhead.
- AstralStorm 10y agoThis just shows how much unchecked access is done in any given application. Asan is still much faster than for instance Valgrind. Plus there are some parts that are actually static analysis, those have no impact on runtime.