fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia by PiJoules · Pull Request #159873 · rust-lang/rust

PiJoules · 2026-07-24T23:08:46Z

Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

rustbot · 2026-07-24T23:08:49Z

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

rustbot · 2026-07-24T23:08:51Z

rustbot has assigned @adwinwhite.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
compiler expanded to 74 candidates
Random selection from 18 candidates

PiJoules · 2026-07-24T23:09:15Z

r? @erickt

rustbot · 2026-07-24T23:09:18Z

Failed to set assignee to erickt: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

workingjubilee · 2026-07-25T01:39:51Z

huh. that's weird.

adwinwhite · 2026-08-13T02:50:05Z

@rustbot author

rustbot · 2026-08-13T02:50:09Z

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

rustbot · 2026-08-26T17:50:14Z

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

PiJoules · 2026-08-26T17:50:43Z

@rustbot ready

adwinwhite · 2026-08-27T02:57:34Z

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

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

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

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?

…ble, r=adwinwhite compiler: Allow safestack to be togglable via #[sanitize(safestack = "...")] Since safestack is a sanitizer, it should be possible to allow enabling/disabling it on functions like we do with the other sanitizers. It's likely that when adding the `#[sanitize(...)]` support for the other ones that safestack was just missed, so this makes safestack follow suite. It was also suggested in rust-lang#159873 that we just disable safestack this way for a specific test where we should check stack protector instrumentation.

Rollup merge of #161888 - PiJoules:sanitize-safestack-togglable, r=adwinwhite compiler: Allow safestack to be togglable via #[sanitize(safestack = "...")] Since safestack is a sanitizer, it should be possible to allow enabling/disabling it on functions like we do with the other sanitizers. It's likely that when adding the `#[sanitize(...)]` support for the other ones that safestack was just missed, so this makes safestack follow suite. It was also suggested in #159873 that we just disable safestack this way for a specific test where we should check stack protector instrumentation.

Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

rustbot · 2026-09-01T19:07:42Z

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

PiJoules · 2026-09-01T19:08:19Z

Sorry I accidentally did a force push but all the comments should be resolved

adwinwhite · 2026-09-02T02:09:46Z

No worries. It's good to squash commits for small changes.
@bors r+ rollup

rust-bors · 2026-09-02T02:09:49Z

📌 Commit 7a44484 has been approved by adwinwhite

It is now in the queue for this repository.

…nwhite fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

…uwer Rollup of 23 pull requests Successful merges: - #162164 (Revert "Implement Debug for C-like enums with a concatenated string") - #160564 (volatile: allow accesses to non-AM memory to trap) - #161579 (suggest calling a fn item used as the iterator of a `for` loop) - #162044 (coverage: Resolve spans to file-coordinates in a separate step) - #162120 (Introduce `PerOwnerLoweringState`) - #162151 (Test itanium mangling of `f16` and `f128`) - #162162 (Don't special-case `!` in stability checks anymore) - #162181 (Remove wrong UnusedBraces lint for iterator loop in edition 2024 ) - #162187 (Rename `thir::ExprKind::Use` to `ValueExpr`) - #158401 (mgca: Don't ICE when evaluating ValTrees that contain error constants) - #159873 (fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia) - #161847 (Preserve visibility in nested macro import suggestions) - #161972 (Improve tests for `#[track_caller]` in async) - #162008 (Render the `box` pattern removal diagnostic more actionable & remove `box` expression recovery) - #162065 (std: don't reference `libc::O_NOFOLLOW` on VxWorks in `set_perm_nofollow`) - #162076 (docs(num): clarify conditions under which error occurs in `impl TryFrom<int> for int`) - #162152 (Revert "retrieve supported GCC targets from the sysroot") - #162153 (Prefer `LLVMGetVersion` for runtime info) - #162168 (fix ICE in project_goals/inherent) - #162171 (Explain LoongArch f16 NaN-boxing in inline asm) - #162173 (fix supposedly unreachable `bug!` being reachable) - #162191 (core: mark float `ClampBounds` methods as `#[inline]`) - #162199 (docs(time): clarify exact seconds for hour and minute)

…nwhite fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

Rollup of 23 pull requests Successful merges: - #157808 (sanitizers: Implement support for the sanitize ignorelist) - #160564 (volatile: allow accesses to non-AM memory to trap) - #161579 (suggest calling a fn item used as the iterator of a `for` loop) - #162044 (coverage: Resolve spans to file-coordinates in a separate step) - #162120 (Introduce `PerOwnerLoweringState`) - #162151 (Test itanium mangling of `f16` and `f128`) - #162162 (Don't special-case `!` in stability checks anymore) - #162181 (Remove wrong UnusedBraces lint for iterator loop in edition 2024 ) - #162187 (Rename `thir::ExprKind::Use` to `ValueExpr`) - #158401 (mgca: Don't ICE when evaluating ValTrees that contain error constants) - #159873 (fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia) - #161847 (Preserve visibility in nested macro import suggestions) - #161972 (Improve tests for `#[track_caller]` in async) - #162008 (Render the `box` pattern removal diagnostic more actionable & remove `box` expression recovery) - #162065 (std: don't reference `libc::O_NOFOLLOW` on VxWorks in `set_perm_nofollow`) - #162076 (docs(num): clarify conditions under which error occurs in `impl TryFrom<int> for int`) - #162152 (Revert "retrieve supported GCC targets from the sysroot") - #162153 (Prefer `LLVMGetVersion` for runtime info) - #162168 (fix ICE in project_goals/inherent) - #162171 (Explain LoongArch f16 NaN-boxing in inline asm) - #162173 (fix supposedly unreachable `bug!` being reachable) - #162191 (core: mark float `ClampBounds` methods as `#[inline]`) - #162199 (docs(time): clarify exact seconds for hour and minute)

…nwhite fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 24, 2026

rustbot assigned adwinwhite Jul 24, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 13, 2026

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Aug 13, 2026

PiJoules force-pushed the fuchsia-safestack branch from 2d56acc to e717aa8 Compare August 26, 2026 17:50

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Aug 26, 2026

adwinwhite reviewed Aug 27, 2026

View reviewed changes

adwinwhite added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 27, 2026

khyperia mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2026

compiler: Allow safestack to be togglable via #[sanitize(safestack = "...")] #161888

Merged

fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia

7a44484

Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

PiJoules force-pushed the fuchsia-safestack branch from d993f4d to 7a44484 Compare September 1, 2026 19:07

rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 2, 2026

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 16 pull requests #162184

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 16 pull requests #162186

Closed

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 15 pull requests #162188

Closed

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 18 pull requests #162189

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 20 pull requests #162198

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 23 pull requests #162206

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 23 pull requests #162211

Closed

GuillaumeGomez mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2026

Rollup of 23 pull requests #162216

Closed

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2026

Rollup of 29 pull requests #162221

Open

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

PiJoules commented Jul 24, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

PiJoules commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

workingjubilee commented Jul 25, 2026

Uh oh!

adwinwhite commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Aug 26, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

PiJoules commented Aug 26, 2026

Uh oh!

adwinwhite Aug 27, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PiJoules Aug 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PiJoules Aug 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

adwinwhite Aug 29, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

PiJoules Sep 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

PiJoules commented Sep 1, 2026

Uh oh!

adwinwhite commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

PiJoules commented Jul 24, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

adwinwhite Aug 27, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading