David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2021-Mar-19 21:11 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality
Just writing it down in this thread - this issue's been discussed a bit in this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49599 And yeah, I'm considering adopting MachO's default (TrapUnreachable + NoTrapOnNoreturn) as the default for LLVM (will require some design discussion, no doubt) since it seems to capture most of the functionality desired. Maybe there are some cases where we have extra unreachables that could've otherwise been optimized away/elided, but hopefully nothing drastic. (some platforms still need the trap-on-noreturn - Windows+AArch64 and maybe Sony, etc - happy for some folks to opt into that). I wonder whether TrapUnreachable shouldn't even be an option anymore though, if it becomes load bearing for correctness - or should it become a fallback option - "no trap unreachable" maybe means nop instead of trap, in case your target can't handle a trap sometimes (I came across an issue with AMDGPU not being able to add traps to functions that it isn't expecting - the function needs some special attribute to have a trap in it - but I guess it can be updated to add that attribute if the function has an unreachable in it (though then it has to recreate the no-trap-on-noreturn handling too when deciding whether to add the attribute... )) On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:20 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Hans > > Wennborg via llvm-dev > > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 9:11 AM > > To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality > > > > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Looks perfect to me! > > > > > > well, a couple of questions: Why a noop, rather than int3/ud2/etc? > > > > Probably no reason. > > FTR there is TargetOptions.TrapUnreachable, which some targets turn on > (for X86 it's on for MachO and PS4), this turns 'unreachable' into ud2. > Clearly it covers more than "empty" functions but is probably the kind > of thing you're looking for. > --paulr > > > > > > Might be worth using the existing code that places such an instruction > > > when building at -O0? > > > > I wasn't aware of that. Does it happen for all functions (e.g. I think > > I got pulled into this due to functions with the naked attribute)? > > > > > & you mention that this causes problems on Windows - but ICF done by > > > the Windows linker does not cause such problems? (I'd have thought > > > they'd result in the same situation - two functions described as being > > > at the same address?) is there a quick summary of why those two cases > > > turn out differently? > > > > The case that we hit was that the Control Flow Guard table of > > addresses in the binary ended up listing the same address twice, which > > the loader didn't expect. It may be that the linker took care to avoid > > that for ICF (if two ICF'd functions got the same address, only list > > it once in the CFG table) but still didn't handle the "empty function" > > problem. > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:17 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Maybe we can just expand this to always apply: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D32330 > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:46 AM David Blaikie via cfe-dev > > > > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > LLVM can produce zero length functions from cases like this (when > > > > > optimizations are enabled): > > > > > > > > > > void f1() { __builtin_unreachable(); } > > > > > int f2() { /* missing return statement */ } > > > > > > > > > > This code is valid, so long as the functions are never called. > > > > > > > > > > I believe C++ requires that all functions have a distinct address > > (ie: > > > > > &f1 != &f2) and LLVM optimizes code on this basis (assert(f1 == f2) > > > > > gets optimized into an unconditional assertion failure) > > > > > > > > > > But these zero length functions can end up with identical > addresses. > > > > > > > > > > I'm unaware of anything in the C++ spec (or the LLVM langref) that > > > > > would indicate that would allow distinct functions to have > identical > > > > > addresses - so should we do something about this in the LLVM > > backend? > > > > > add a little padding? a nop instruction? (if we're adding an > > > > > instruction anyway, perhaps we might as well make it an int3?) > > > > > > > > > > (I came across this due to DWARF issues with zero length functions > & > > > > > thinking about if/how this should be supported) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > cfe-dev mailing list > > > > > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > > > > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210319/f0138540/attachment.html>
James Y Knight via llvm-dev
2021-Mar-19 22:00 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality
I'm not sure whether we'd want *every* unreachable to emit a trap, but I do think we should try not to let code fall out of one function and into a completely unrelated one. That is: I'd propose that the last basic-block in every function should get a trap instruction added unless it already ends in a control transfer instruction (jmp, ret, or branch -- call doesn't count, since it may return). On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 5:12 PM David Blaikie via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Just writing it down in this thread - this issue's been discussed a bit in > this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49599 > > And yeah, I'm considering adopting MachO's default (TrapUnreachable + > NoTrapOnNoreturn) as the default for LLVM (will require some design > discussion, no doubt) since it seems to capture most of the functionality > desired. Maybe there are some cases where we have extra unreachables that > could've otherwise been optimized away/elided, but hopefully nothing > drastic. > > (some platforms still need the trap-on-noreturn - Windows+AArch64 and > maybe Sony, etc - happy for some folks to opt into that). I wonder whether > TrapUnreachable shouldn't even be an option anymore though, if it becomes > load bearing for correctness - or should it become a fallback option - "no > trap unreachable" maybe means nop instead of trap, in case your target > can't handle a trap sometimes (I came across an issue with AMDGPU not being > able to add traps to functions that it isn't expecting - the function needs > some special attribute to have a trap in it - but I guess it can be updated > to add that attribute if the function has an unreachable in it (though then > it has to recreate the no-trap-on-noreturn handling too when deciding > whether to add the attribute... )) > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:20 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Hans >> > Wennborg via llvm-dev >> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 9:11 AM >> > To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Looks perfect to me! >> > > >> > > well, a couple of questions: Why a noop, rather than int3/ud2/etc? >> > >> > Probably no reason. >> >> FTR there is TargetOptions.TrapUnreachable, which some targets turn on >> (for X86 it's on for MachO and PS4), this turns 'unreachable' into ud2. >> Clearly it covers more than "empty" functions but is probably the kind >> of thing you're looking for. >> --paulr >> >> > >> > > Might be worth using the existing code that places such an instruction >> > > when building at -O0? >> > >> > I wasn't aware of that. Does it happen for all functions (e.g. I think >> > I got pulled into this due to functions with the naked attribute)? >> > >> > > & you mention that this causes problems on Windows - but ICF done by >> > > the Windows linker does not cause such problems? (I'd have thought >> > > they'd result in the same situation - two functions described as being >> > > at the same address?) is there a quick summary of why those two cases >> > > turn out differently? >> > >> > The case that we hit was that the Control Flow Guard table of >> > addresses in the binary ended up listing the same address twice, which >> > the loader didn't expect. It may be that the linker took care to avoid >> > that for ICF (if two ICF'd functions got the same address, only list >> > it once in the CFG table) but still didn't handle the "empty function" >> > problem. >> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:17 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Maybe we can just expand this to always apply: >> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D32330 >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:46 AM David Blaikie via cfe-dev >> > > > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > LLVM can produce zero length functions from cases like this (when >> > > > > optimizations are enabled): >> > > > > >> > > > > void f1() { __builtin_unreachable(); } >> > > > > int f2() { /* missing return statement */ } >> > > > > >> > > > > This code is valid, so long as the functions are never called. >> > > > > >> > > > > I believe C++ requires that all functions have a distinct address >> > (ie: >> > > > > &f1 != &f2) and LLVM optimizes code on this basis (assert(f1 =>> f2) >> > > > > gets optimized into an unconditional assertion failure) >> > > > > >> > > > > But these zero length functions can end up with identical >> addresses. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm unaware of anything in the C++ spec (or the LLVM langref) that >> > > > > would indicate that would allow distinct functions to have >> identical >> > > > > addresses - so should we do something about this in the LLVM >> > backend? >> > > > > add a little padding? a nop instruction? (if we're adding an >> > > > > instruction anyway, perhaps we might as well make it an int3?) >> > > > > >> > > > > (I came across this due to DWARF issues with zero length >> functions & >> > > > > thinking about if/how this should be supported) >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > cfe-dev mailing list >> > > > > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > > > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210319/55b3ad9a/attachment.html>
Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev
2021-Sep-07 12:23 UTC
[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality
Did anything come of this? The Linux folks (cc Nick) keep running into issues where a function which ends with unreachable can fall through to an unrelated function, which confuses some machine code analyser they run (e.g. https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1440). It seems TrapUnreachable would avoid such issues. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:11 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:> Just writing it down in this thread - this issue's been discussed a bit in > this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49599 > > And yeah, I'm considering adopting MachO's default (TrapUnreachable + > NoTrapOnNoreturn) as the default for LLVM (will require some design > discussion, no doubt) since it seems to capture most of the functionality > desired. Maybe there are some cases where we have extra unreachables that > could've otherwise been optimized away/elided, but hopefully nothing > drastic. > > (some platforms still need the trap-on-noreturn - Windows+AArch64 and > maybe Sony, etc - happy for some folks to opt into that). I wonder whether > TrapUnreachable shouldn't even be an option anymore though, if it becomes > load bearing for correctness - or should it become a fallback option - "no > trap unreachable" maybe means nop instead of trap, in case your target > can't handle a trap sometimes (I came across an issue with AMDGPU not being > able to add traps to functions that it isn't expecting - the function needs > some special attribute to have a trap in it - but I guess it can be updated > to add that attribute if the function has an unreachable in it (though then > it has to recreate the no-trap-on-noreturn handling too when deciding > whether to add the attribute... )) > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:20 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Hans >> > Wennborg via llvm-dev >> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 9:11 AM >> > To: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Zero length function pointer equality >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 3:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Looks perfect to me! >> > > >> > > well, a couple of questions: Why a noop, rather than int3/ud2/etc? >> > >> > Probably no reason. >> >> FTR there is TargetOptions.TrapUnreachable, which some targets turn on >> (for X86 it's on for MachO and PS4), this turns 'unreachable' into ud2. >> Clearly it covers more than "empty" functions but is probably the kind >> of thing you're looking for. >> --paulr >> >> > >> > > Might be worth using the existing code that places such an instruction >> > > when building at -O0? >> > >> > I wasn't aware of that. Does it happen for all functions (e.g. I think >> > I got pulled into this due to functions with the naked attribute)? >> > >> > > & you mention that this causes problems on Windows - but ICF done by >> > > the Windows linker does not cause such problems? (I'd have thought >> > > they'd result in the same situation - two functions described as being >> > > at the same address?) is there a quick summary of why those two cases >> > > turn out differently? >> > >> > The case that we hit was that the Control Flow Guard table of >> > addresses in the binary ended up listing the same address twice, which >> > the loader didn't expect. It may be that the linker took care to avoid >> > that for ICF (if two ICF'd functions got the same address, only list >> > it once in the CFG table) but still didn't handle the "empty function" >> > problem. >> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:17 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Maybe we can just expand this to always apply: >> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D32330 >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:46 AM David Blaikie via cfe-dev >> > > > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > LLVM can produce zero length functions from cases like this (when >> > > > > optimizations are enabled): >> > > > > >> > > > > void f1() { __builtin_unreachable(); } >> > > > > int f2() { /* missing return statement */ } >> > > > > >> > > > > This code is valid, so long as the functions are never called. >> > > > > >> > > > > I believe C++ requires that all functions have a distinct address >> > (ie: >> > > > > &f1 != &f2) and LLVM optimizes code on this basis (assert(f1 =>> f2) >> > > > > gets optimized into an unconditional assertion failure) >> > > > > >> > > > > But these zero length functions can end up with identical >> addresses. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm unaware of anything in the C++ spec (or the LLVM langref) that >> > > > > would indicate that would allow distinct functions to have >> identical >> > > > > addresses - so should we do something about this in the LLVM >> > backend? >> > > > > add a little padding? a nop instruction? (if we're adding an >> > > > > instruction anyway, perhaps we might as well make it an int3?) >> > > > > >> > > > > (I came across this due to DWARF issues with zero length >> functions & >> > > > > thinking about if/how this should be supported) >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > cfe-dev mailing list >> > > > > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > > > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > LLVM Developers mailing list >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210907/c253e69a/attachment.html>