Re: [PATCH] hw/misc/npcm_clk: fix buffer-overflow

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 26/02/2025 21.50, Peter Maydell wrote:
> (edited cc list since it's moved away from a discussion of this
> particular patch and on to a testing/ci coverage issue)
> 
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 19:03, Pierrick Bouvier
> <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/26/25 03:50, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:57, Pierrick Bouvier
>>> <pierrick.bouvier@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/25/25 05:41, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>>> (Looking more closely at the cold_reset_values handling
>>>>> in npcm_gcr.c, that looks not quite right in a different
>>>>> way; I'll send a reply to that patch email about that.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may be a hole in our CI right now.
>>>> Would that be interesting for CI to run all tests (check-functional +
>>>> check w/o functional) with both ubsan and asan?
>>>
>>> We do have at least some ubsan tests in our CI right now
>>> (eg the "clang-system" job). The problem with ubsan coverage
>>> is the usual one that we already have too much CI going on,
>>> and it takes forever and we don't have that much headroom
>>> for adding more jobs.
...
>> Would that hurt so much to have one configuration enabled with ubsan and
>> asan, which catches *real* bugs, and potential security issues?
>> Yes, it adds overhead, but it should not be x10. Around x2 to x3.
> 
> You'd need to have a duplicate of all of the above
> functional-system-* test jobs if you wanted
> to test all the guest architectures, I think. So it's
> 30 mins build * six configs plus 60 mins total for testing.
> Or we could convert (some of?) the existing jobs to use the
> sanitisers if we needed to economise on CI time.

I agree with Peter that having additional build jobs is currently rather a 
no-go ... but maybe we could enable ubsan and/or asan in some (more) of the 
existing pipelines?

  Thomas