llvm dev - Apr 2017 - [RFC] Design of a TBAA sanitizer

On 04/10/2017 09:55 AM, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> I wonder how your solution will handle the following?
>
> struct {
>   int s1_f1;
>   float s1_f2;
>   int s1_f3;
>   float s1_f4;
> } S1;
>
> struct {
>   int s2_f1;
>   float s2_f2;
>   int *s2_f3; // to add some interest, suppose that sizeof(int) == 
> sizeof(int *)
>   float s2_f4;
> } S2;
>
> S1 *s1; S2 *s2;
> ...
> s2 = (S1*)s1;
> s2->s2_f1 = 0; // allowed
> s2->s2_f2 = 0; // allowed
> s2->s2_f3 = 0; // not allowed
> s2->s2_f4 = 0; // not allowed
>
> Also, when you plan to set types for allocated memory?
The most-general thing seems to be to set the types along with a store. 
As a result, the proposed scheme would not find a fault with the code 
above, but would complain if anyone actually later read S1.s1_f3.

If we want to catch these kinds of problems directly we'd need to have 
the compiler insert code when the type is constructed to mark the types, 
and then we'd need to check those types around stores. This also sounds 
like a useful enhancement (although somewhat more complicated to implement).
> What types will be set for memory allocated by a malloc call?
Memory would be untyped (or of unknown type) when allocated.

Thanks again,
Hal
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev 
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a
>     potential TBAA sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize:
>
>     C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer can
>     exploit these given TBAA metadata added by Clang. Roughly, a
>     pointer of given type cannot be used to access an object of a
>     different type (with, of course, certain exceptions).
>     Unfortunately, there's a lot of code in the wild that violates
>     these rules (e.g. for type punning), and such code often must be
>     built with -fno-strict-aliasing. Performance is often sacrificed
>     as a result. Part of the problem is the difficulty of finding TBAA
>     violations. A sanitizer would help.
>
>     A design goal of a TBAA sanitizer is to limit the shadow-memory
>     overhead of the implementation. ASan, for example, uses 1 bit per
>     byte. Here we're hoping to keep the overhead down to 2 bits per
>     byte for the TBAA sanitizing. We might be able to do this, while
>     handling all common types on the fast path, if we use both
>     alignment and type information. When accessing data of B bytes,
>     2*B bits of shadow memory can be used. Thus, we'll get 2 bits for
>     a one-byte type, 4 bits for a two-byte type, etc. Moreover, we
>     need appropriate holes in the encoding space so that no type has a
>     shadow encoding that overlaps with an aligned part of a larger
>     type's encoding.
>     For example, we need to detect:
>
>       double f = ...; return *(int*) &f; // We should catch this.
>
>     We might use the following encoding. The idea is that the common
>     case, for which we need a reasonable fast path, is that type types
>     are exactly equal. For this case, we want a simple comparison of
>     the shadow type encodings to be sufficient to validate the access.
>     For cases where the encodings don't match (and isn't zero to
>     indicate an unknown type), or for which there is no direct
>     encoding for the access type, a slow path must be used. All of
>     this assumes that we're validating the the pointer alignment
>     first, and then checking the type encodings.
>
>     1 Byte:
>     00 = 0  = unknown type
>     01 = 1 = hole
>     10 = 2 = hole
>     11 = 3  = all one-byte types (slow path, see note later on this)
>
>     2 Bytes:
>     0000 = 0 = unknown type
>     0101 = 5 = short
>     0110 = 6 = hole (A)
>     0111 = 7 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>     1001 = 9 = hole (B)
>     1010 = 10 = hole (C)
>     1011 = 11 = char16_t
>     1111 = 15 = all other types (slow path)
>
>     It is important here to have wchar_t have a direct encoding here
>     because wchar_t is two bytes on Windows, and moreover, wchar_t is
>     very commonly used on Windows. The partial encoding overlap of
>     wchar_t (i.e. 0111) with the 11 one-byte-type encoding works
>     because 11 always indicates a slow-path check.
>
>     4 Bytes:
>     0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>     A A = int
>     A B = float
>     B A  = pointer (under some ABIs)
>     B B = long (under some ABIs)
>     A 1111 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>     B 1111 = char32_t
>     A C = hole (D)
>     C A = hole (E)
>     B C = hole (F)
>     C B = hole (G)
>     C C = hole (H)
>     1111 1111 = 255 = all other types (slow path)
>
>     8 Bytes:
>     0000 0000 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>     D D = double
>     D E = long (under some ABIs)
>     E D = long long (under some ABIs)
>     E E = long double (under some ABIs)
>     D F = pointer (under some ABIs)
>     F D = hole (I)
>     E F = hole (J)
>     F E = hole
>     F F = hole
>     ...
>     1111 1111 1111 1111 = 65535 = all other types
>
>     16 Bytes:
>     0 = unknown type
>     | | = __int128_t
>     I J = long long (under some ABIs)
>     J I = long double (under some ABIs)
>     J J = hole
>     ...
>     -1 = all other types
>
>     For pointers, this scheme would consider all pointers to be the
>     same (regardless of pointee type). Doing otherwise would mostly
>     requiring putting pointer-type checking on the slow path (i.e.
>     access via a pointer pointer), and that could add considerable
>     overhead. We might, however, split out function pointers from
>     other pointers. We could provide a compile-time option to control
>     the granularity of pointer-type checks.
>
>     Builtin vector types for which the vector element type has a
>     direct encoding also naturally have a direct encoding (the
>     concatenation of the encoding for the element type).
>
>     Obviously the fact that we have no fast-path encodings for
>     one-byte types could be problematic. Note however that:
>
>      1. If a larger type is being used to access a smaller type (plus
>     more), the encodings won't match, so we always end up on the slow
>     path.
>
>      2. If the access type is a one-byte type, we would want to
>     validate quickly. However, most common one-byte types are
>     universally aliasing (i.e. not subject to TBAA violations).
>     Specifically, for C/C++, pointers to char, unsigned char, signed
>     char (C only), and std::byte, can be used to access any part of
>     any type. That leaves signed char (C++ only), bool/_Bool, and
>     enums with a [signed/unsigned] char base type (C++ only, std::byte
>     exempted) as pointee types we might wish to validate. We'd always
>     need to fall back to the slow path to validate these. We could
>     provide a compile-time option to disable such one-byte access
>     checking if necessary.
>
>     How would the slow path work? First, the code needs to find the
>     beginning of the allocation. It can do this by scanning backwards
>     in the ASan shadow memory. Once located, we'll read a pointer to a
>     type-description structure from that "red zone" location. For
>     dynamic allocations, ASan's allocator will ensure such a space for
>     the pointer exists. For static allocations and globals, the
>     compiler will ensure it exists. The compiler will make sure that
>     all constructors locate this field and fill it in. Destructors can
>     clear it. If two of these type-description-structure pointers are
>     equal, then we can conclude that the types are equal. If not, then
>     we need to interpret the structure. The pointer itself might be to
>     an interval map (to deal with arrays, placement new, etc. - we can
>     use the low bit of the pointer to differentiate between an actual
>     type-description structure and an interval map), and the leaves of
>     the interval map point to actual type-description structures. The
>     type-description structure is an array of (offset, type) pairs,
>     where the type field is also a type-description-structure pointer.
>     The type-description structures themselves are comdat globals
>     emitted in each relevant translation unit, where the comdat key is
>     formed using the mangled type name (and size, etc.), and pointers
>     to these symbols are then used to identify the types.
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>     Thanks again,
>     Hal
>
>     -- 
>     Hal Finkel
>     Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>     Leadership Computing Facility
>     Argonne National Laboratory
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>     <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>
>
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170410/1eee16d3/attachment.html>

Hal,

To clarify, my example meant to illustrate that for memory references to
structures' fields you have to keep a user-defined type, even for one byte
accesses. C++ allows references to "initial member sequence" using
pointers
to structures of different types. And yes, there are programs in the wild
that rely on this (don't remember details... this was from previous life).

Another thing to consider -- what about memset / memcpy / etc that
inherently rely on type punning? If not inlined, they don't present
problems for an optimizer -- probably shouldn't be considered as aliasing
rules violation?

Yours,
Andrey
==Compiler Architect
NXP


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2017 09:55 AM, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
>
> Hi Hal,
>
> I wonder how your solution will handle the following?
>
> struct {
>   int s1_f1;
>   float s1_f2;
>   int s1_f3;
>   float s1_f4;
> } S1;
>
> struct {
>   int s2_f1;
>   float s2_f2;
>   int *s2_f3; // to add some interest, suppose that sizeof(int) =>
sizeof(int *)
>   float s2_f4;
> } S2;
>
> S1 *s1; S2 *s2;
> ...
> s2 = (S1*)s1;
> s2->s2_f1 = 0; // allowed
> s2->s2_f2 = 0; // allowed
> s2->s2_f3 = 0; // not allowed
> s2->s2_f4 = 0; // not allowed
>
> Also, when you plan to set types for allocated memory?
>
>
> The most-general thing seems to be to set the types along with a store. As
> a result, the proposed scheme would not find a fault with the code above,
> but would complain if anyone actually later read S1.s1_f3.
>
> If we want to catch these kinds of problems directly we'd need to have
the
> compiler insert code when the type is constructed to mark the types, and
> then we'd need to check those types around stores. This also sounds
like a
> useful enhancement (although somewhat more complicated to implement).
>
> What types will be set for memory allocated by a malloc call?
>
>
> Memory would be untyped (or of unknown type) when allocated.
>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
>
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a potential
TBAA
>> sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize:
>>
>> C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer can
exploit
>> these given TBAA metadata added by Clang. Roughly, a pointer of given
type
>> cannot be used to access an object of a different type (with, of
course,
>> certain exceptions). Unfortunately, there's a lot of code in the
wild that
>> violates these rules (e.g. for type punning), and such code often must
be
>> built with -fno-strict-aliasing. Performance is often sacrificed as a
>> result. Part of the problem is the difficulty of finding TBAA
violations. A
>> sanitizer would help.
>>
>> A design goal of a TBAA sanitizer is to limit the shadow-memory
overhead
>> of the implementation. ASan, for example, uses 1 bit per byte. Here
we're
>> hoping to keep the overhead down to 2 bits per byte for the TBAA
>> sanitizing. We might be able to do this, while handling all common
types on
>> the fast path, if we use both alignment and type information. When
>> accessing data of B bytes, 2*B bits of shadow memory can be used. Thus,
>> we'll get 2 bits for a one-byte type, 4 bits for a two-byte type,
etc.
>> Moreover, we need appropriate holes in the encoding space so that no
type
>> has a shadow encoding that overlaps with an aligned part of a larger
type's
>> encoding.
>> For example, we need to detect:
>>
>>   double f = ...; return *(int*) &f; // We should catch this.
>>
>> We might use the following encoding. The idea is that the common case,
>> for which we need a reasonable fast path, is that type types are
exactly
>> equal. For this case, we want a simple comparison of the shadow type
>> encodings to be sufficient to validate the access. For cases where the
>> encodings don't match (and isn't zero to indicate an unknown
type), or for
>> which there is no direct encoding for the access type, a slow path must
be
>> used. All of this assumes that we're validating the the pointer
alignment
>> first, and then checking the type encodings.
>>
>> 1 Byte:
>> 00 = 0  = unknown type
>> 01 = 1 = hole
>> 10 = 2 = hole
>> 11 = 3  = all one-byte types (slow path, see note later on this)
>>
>> 2 Bytes:
>> 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>> 0101 = 5 = short
>> 0110 = 6 = hole (A)
>> 0111 = 7 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>> 1001 = 9 = hole (B)
>> 1010 = 10 = hole (C)
>> 1011 = 11 = char16_t
>> 1111 = 15 = all other types (slow path)
>>
>> It is important here to have wchar_t have a direct encoding here
because
>> wchar_t is two bytes on Windows, and moreover, wchar_t is very commonly
>> used on Windows. The partial encoding overlap of wchar_t (i.e. 0111)
with
>> the 11 one-byte-type encoding works because 11 always indicates a
slow-path
>> check.
>>
>> 4 Bytes:
>> 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>> A A = int
>> A B = float
>> B A  = pointer (under some ABIs)
>> B B = long (under some ABIs)
>> A 1111 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>> B 1111 = char32_t
>> A C = hole (D)
>> C A = hole (E)
>> B C = hole (F)
>> C B = hole (G)
>> C C = hole (H)
>> 1111 1111 = 255 = all other types (slow path)
>>
>> 8 Bytes:
>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>> D D = double
>> D E = long (under some ABIs)
>> E D = long long (under some ABIs)
>> E E = long double (under some ABIs)
>> D F = pointer (under some ABIs)
>> F D = hole (I)
>> E F = hole (J)
>> F E = hole
>> F F = hole
>> ...
>> 1111 1111 1111 1111 = 65535 = all other types
>>
>> 16 Bytes:
>> 0 = unknown type
>> | | = __int128_t
>> I J = long long (under some ABIs)
>> J I = long double (under some ABIs)
>> J J = hole
>> ...
>> -1 = all other types
>>
>> For pointers, this scheme would consider all pointers to be the same
>> (regardless of pointee type). Doing otherwise would mostly requiring
>> putting pointer-type checking on the slow path (i.e. access via a
pointer
>> pointer), and that could add considerable overhead. We might, however,
>> split out function pointers from other pointers. We could provide a
>> compile-time option to control the granularity of pointer-type checks.
>>
>> Builtin vector types for which the vector element type has a direct
>> encoding also naturally have a direct encoding (the concatenation of
the
>> encoding for the element type).
>>
>> Obviously the fact that we have no fast-path encodings for one-byte
types
>> could be problematic. Note however that:
>>
>>  1. If a larger type is being used to access a smaller type (plus
more),
>> the encodings won't match, so we always end up on the slow path.
>>
>>  2. If the access type is a one-byte type, we would want to validate
>> quickly. However, most common one-byte types are universally aliasing
(i.e.
>> not subject to TBAA violations). Specifically, for C/C++, pointers to
char,
>> unsigned char, signed char (C only), and std::byte, can be used to
access
>> any part of any type. That leaves signed char (C++ only), bool/_Bool,
and
>> enums with a [signed/unsigned] char base type (C++ only, std::byte
>> exempted) as pointee types we might wish to validate. We'd always
need to
>> fall back to the slow path to validate these. We could provide a
>> compile-time option to disable such one-byte access checking if
necessary.
>>
>> How would the slow path work? First, the code needs to find the
beginning
>> of the allocation. It can do this by scanning backwards in the ASan
shadow
>> memory. Once located, we'll read a pointer to a type-description
structure
>> from that "red zone" location. For dynamic allocations,
ASan's allocator
>> will ensure such a space for the pointer exists. For static allocations
and
>> globals, the compiler will ensure it exists. The compiler will make
sure
>> that all constructors locate this field and fill it in. Destructors can
>> clear it. If two of these type-description-structure pointers are
equal,
>> then we can conclude that the types are equal. If not, then we need to
>> interpret the structure. The pointer itself might be to an interval map
(to
>> deal with arrays, placement new, etc. - we can use the low bit of the
>> pointer to differentiate between an actual type-description structure
and
>> an interval map), and the leaves of the interval map point to actual
>> type-description structures. The type-description structure is an array
of
>> (offset, type) pairs, where the type field is also a
>> type-description-structure pointer. The type-description structures
>> themselves are comdat globals emitted in each relevant translation
unit,
>> where the comdat key is formed using the mangled type name (and size,
>> etc.), and pointers to these symbols are then used to identify the
types.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Hal
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170411/f3aa0c14/attachment-0001.html>

C++ only allows this for two things in a union.
Same with C11.
This is the "common initial sequence rule".

What you are showing is very clearly forbidden by the effective type rules.

Cerebus (https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/cerberus/) agrees:
#include <stdio.h>

typedef struct { int i1; } s1;
typedef struct { int i2; } s2;

void f(s1 *s1p, s2 *s2p) {
  s1p->i1 = 2;
  s2p->i2 = 3;
  printf("%i\n", s1p->i1);
}

int main() {
  s1 s = {.i1 = 1};
  f(&s, (s2 *)&s);
}

GCC -O2 will print 2 instead of 3.

The only way this is legal is if you did:
typedef struct { int i1; } s1;
typedef struct { s1 base; } s2;


void f(s1 *s1p, s2 *s2p) {
  s1p->i1 = 2;
  s2p->base.i1 = 3;
  printf("%i\n", s1p->i1);
}

int main() {
  s1 s = {.i1 = 1};
  f(&s, (s2 *)&s);
}
This would be legal.

Gcc prints 3 ;)




On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Andrey Bokhanko via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hal,
>
> To clarify, my example meant to illustrate that for memory references to
> structures' fields you have to keep a user-defined type, even for one
byte
> accesses. C++ allows references to "initial member sequence"
using pointers
> to structures of different types. And yes, there are programs in the wild
> that rely on this (don't remember details... this was from previous
life).
>
> Another thing to consider -- what about memset / memcpy / etc that
> inherently rely on type punning? If not inlined, they don't present
> problems for an optimizer -- probably shouldn't be considered as
aliasing
> rules violation?
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
> ==> Compiler Architect
> NXP
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>
wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04/10/2017 09:55 AM, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
>>
>> Hi Hal,
>>
>> I wonder how your solution will handle the following?
>>
>> struct {
>>   int s1_f1;
>>   float s1_f2;
>>   int s1_f3;
>>   float s1_f4;
>> } S1;
>>
>> struct {
>>   int s2_f1;
>>   float s2_f2;
>>   int *s2_f3; // to add some interest, suppose that sizeof(int)
=>> sizeof(int *)
>>   float s2_f4;
>> } S2;
>>
>> S1 *s1; S2 *s2;
>> ...
>> s2 = (S1*)s1;
>> s2->s2_f1 = 0; // allowed
>> s2->s2_f2 = 0; // allowed
>> s2->s2_f3 = 0; // not allowed
>> s2->s2_f4 = 0; // not allowed
>>
>> Also, when you plan to set types for allocated memory?
>>
>>
>> The most-general thing seems to be to set the types along with a store.
>> As a result, the proposed scheme would not find a fault with the code
>> above, but would complain if anyone actually later read S1.s1_f3.
>>
>> If we want to catch these kinds of problems directly we'd need to
have
>> the compiler insert code when the type is constructed to mark the
types,
>> and then we'd need to check those types around stores. This also
sounds
>> like a useful enhancement (although somewhat more complicated to
implement).
>>
>> What types will be set for memory allocated by a malloc call?
>>
>>
>> Memory would be untyped (or of unknown type) when allocated.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Hal
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>> Andrey
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a
potential
>>> TBAA sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize:
>>>
>>> C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer can
exploit
>>> these given TBAA metadata added by Clang. Roughly, a pointer of
given type
>>> cannot be used to access an object of a different type (with, of
course,
>>> certain exceptions). Unfortunately, there's a lot of code in
the wild that
>>> violates these rules (e.g. for type punning), and such code often
must be
>>> built with -fno-strict-aliasing. Performance is often sacrificed as
a
>>> result. Part of the problem is the difficulty of finding TBAA
violations. A
>>> sanitizer would help.
>>>
>>> A design goal of a TBAA sanitizer is to limit the shadow-memory
overhead
>>> of the implementation. ASan, for example, uses 1 bit per byte. Here
we're
>>> hoping to keep the overhead down to 2 bits per byte for the TBAA
>>> sanitizing. We might be able to do this, while handling all common
types on
>>> the fast path, if we use both alignment and type information. When
>>> accessing data of B bytes, 2*B bits of shadow memory can be used.
Thus,
>>> we'll get 2 bits for a one-byte type, 4 bits for a two-byte
type, etc.
>>> Moreover, we need appropriate holes in the encoding space so that
no type
>>> has a shadow encoding that overlaps with an aligned part of a
larger type's
>>> encoding.
>>> For example, we need to detect:
>>>
>>>   double f = ...; return *(int*) &f; // We should catch this.
>>>
>>> We might use the following encoding. The idea is that the common
case,
>>> for which we need a reasonable fast path, is that type types are
exactly
>>> equal. For this case, we want a simple comparison of the shadow
type
>>> encodings to be sufficient to validate the access. For cases where
the
>>> encodings don't match (and isn't zero to indicate an
unknown type), or for
>>> which there is no direct encoding for the access type, a slow path
must be
>>> used. All of this assumes that we're validating the the pointer
alignment
>>> first, and then checking the type encodings.
>>>
>>> 1 Byte:
>>> 00 = 0  = unknown type
>>> 01 = 1 = hole
>>> 10 = 2 = hole
>>> 11 = 3  = all one-byte types (slow path, see note later on this)
>>>
>>> 2 Bytes:
>>> 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>> 0101 = 5 = short
>>> 0110 = 6 = hole (A)
>>> 0111 = 7 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>>> 1001 = 9 = hole (B)
>>> 1010 = 10 = hole (C)
>>> 1011 = 11 = char16_t
>>> 1111 = 15 = all other types (slow path)
>>>
>>> It is important here to have wchar_t have a direct encoding here
because
>>> wchar_t is two bytes on Windows, and moreover, wchar_t is very
commonly
>>> used on Windows. The partial encoding overlap of wchar_t (i.e.
0111) with
>>> the 11 one-byte-type encoding works because 11 always indicates a
slow-path
>>> check.
>>>
>>> 4 Bytes:
>>> 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>> A A = int
>>> A B = float
>>> B A  = pointer (under some ABIs)
>>> B B = long (under some ABIs)
>>> A 1111 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>>> B 1111 = char32_t
>>> A C = hole (D)
>>> C A = hole (E)
>>> B C = hole (F)
>>> C B = hole (G)
>>> C C = hole (H)
>>> 1111 1111 = 255 = all other types (slow path)
>>>
>>> 8 Bytes:
>>> 0000 0000 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>> D D = double
>>> D E = long (under some ABIs)
>>> E D = long long (under some ABIs)
>>> E E = long double (under some ABIs)
>>> D F = pointer (under some ABIs)
>>> F D = hole (I)
>>> E F = hole (J)
>>> F E = hole
>>> F F = hole
>>> ...
>>> 1111 1111 1111 1111 = 65535 = all other types
>>>
>>> 16 Bytes:
>>> 0 = unknown type
>>> | | = __int128_t
>>> I J = long long (under some ABIs)
>>> J I = long double (under some ABIs)
>>> J J = hole
>>> ...
>>> -1 = all other types
>>>
>>> For pointers, this scheme would consider all pointers to be the
same
>>> (regardless of pointee type). Doing otherwise would mostly
requiring
>>> putting pointer-type checking on the slow path (i.e. access via a
pointer
>>> pointer), and that could add considerable overhead. We might,
however,
>>> split out function pointers from other pointers. We could provide a
>>> compile-time option to control the granularity of pointer-type
checks.
>>>
>>> Builtin vector types for which the vector element type has a direct
>>> encoding also naturally have a direct encoding (the concatenation
of the
>>> encoding for the element type).
>>>
>>> Obviously the fact that we have no fast-path encodings for one-byte
>>> types could be problematic. Note however that:
>>>
>>>  1. If a larger type is being used to access a smaller type (plus
more),
>>> the encodings won't match, so we always end up on the slow
path.
>>>
>>>  2. If the access type is a one-byte type, we would want to
validate
>>> quickly. However, most common one-byte types are universally
aliasing (i.e.
>>> not subject to TBAA violations). Specifically, for C/C++, pointers
to char,
>>> unsigned char, signed char (C only), and std::byte, can be used to
access
>>> any part of any type. That leaves signed char (C++ only),
bool/_Bool, and
>>> enums with a [signed/unsigned] char base type (C++ only, std::byte
>>> exempted) as pointee types we might wish to validate. We'd
always need to
>>> fall back to the slow path to validate these. We could provide a
>>> compile-time option to disable such one-byte access checking if
necessary.
>>>
>>> How would the slow path work? First, the code needs to find the
>>> beginning of the allocation. It can do this by scanning backwards
in the
>>> ASan shadow memory. Once located, we'll read a pointer to a
>>> type-description structure from that "red zone" location.
For dynamic
>>> allocations, ASan's allocator will ensure such a space for the
pointer
>>> exists. For static allocations and globals, the compiler will
ensure it
>>> exists. The compiler will make sure that all constructors locate
this field
>>> and fill it in. Destructors can clear it. If two of these
>>> type-description-structure pointers are equal, then we can conclude
that
>>> the types are equal. If not, then we need to interpret the
structure. The
>>> pointer itself might be to an interval map (to deal with arrays,
placement
>>> new, etc. - we can use the low bit of the pointer to differentiate
between
>>> an actual type-description structure and an interval map), and the
leaves
>>> of the interval map point to actual type-description structures.
The
>>> type-description structure is an array of (offset, type) pairs,
where the
>>> type field is also a type-description-structure pointer. The
>>> type-description structures themselves are comdat globals emitted
in each
>>> relevant translation unit, where the comdat key is formed using the
mangled
>>> type name (and size, etc.), and pointers to these symbols are then
used to
>>> identify the types.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Hal
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hal Finkel
>>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://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/20170411/9d4f0212/attachment.html>

On 04/11/2017 03:46 AM, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
> Hal,
>
> To clarify, my example meant to illustrate that for memory references 
> to structures' fields you have to keep a user-defined type, even for 
> one byte accesses. C++ allows references to "initial member
sequence"
> using pointers to structures of different types. And yes, there are 
> programs in the wild that rely on this (don't remember details... this 
> was from previous life).
>
> Another thing to consider -- what about memset / memcpy / etc that 
> inherently rely on type punning? If not inlined, they don't present 
> problems for an optimizer -- probably shouldn't be considered as 
> aliasing rules violation?
Good point. You (likely) wouldn't want to compile your memcpy / memset / 
etc. implementations with the TBAA sanitizer enabled (or we'd need to 
provide an attribute to disable it for certain functions). If they only 
use char* themselves, then it's fine, but if not, that's implementation 
magic. However, memset, etc. does need to be able to 'unset' the type of
memory and memcpy needs to be able to copy types (at least for PODs). 
The sanitizer would need to hook them for that purpose.

  -Hal
>
> Yours,
> Andrey
> ==> Compiler Architect
> NXP
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov 
> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 04/10/2017 09:55 AM, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
>>     Hi Hal,
>>
>>     I wonder how your solution will handle the following?
>>
>>     struct {
>>       int s1_f1;
>>       float s1_f2;
>>       int s1_f3;
>>       float s1_f4;
>>     } S1;
>>
>>     struct {
>>       int s2_f1;
>>       float s2_f2;
>>       int *s2_f3; // to add some interest, suppose that sizeof(int)
>>     == sizeof(int *)
>>       float s2_f4;
>>     } S2;
>>
>>     S1 *s1; S2 *s2;
>>     ...
>>     s2 = (S1*)s1;
>>     s2->s2_f1 = 0; // allowed
>>     s2->s2_f2 = 0; // allowed
>>     s2->s2_f3 = 0; // not allowed
>>     s2->s2_f4 = 0; // not allowed
>>
>>     Also, when you plan to set types for allocated memory?
>
>     The most-general thing seems to be to set the types along with a
>     store. As a result, the proposed scheme would not find a fault
>     with the code above, but would complain if anyone actually later
>     read S1.s1_f3.
>
>     If we want to catch these kinds of problems directly we'd need to
>     have the compiler insert code when the type is constructed to mark
>     the types, and then we'd need to check those types around stores.
>     This also sounds like a useful enhancement (although somewhat more
>     complicated to implement).
>
>>     What types will be set for memory allocated by a malloc call?
>
>     Memory would be untyped (or of unknown type) when allocated.
>
>     Thanks again,
>     Hal
>
>
>>
>>     Yours,
>>     Andrey
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
>>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi everyone,
>>
>>         At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a
>>         potential TBAA sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize:
>>
>>         C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer
>>         can exploit these given TBAA metadata added by Clang.
>>         Roughly, a pointer of given type cannot be used to access an
>>         object of a different type (with, of course, certain
>>         exceptions). Unfortunately, there's a lot of code in the
wild
>>         that violates these rules (e.g. for type punning), and such
>>         code often must be built with -fno-strict-aliasing.
>>         Performance is often sacrificed as a result. Part of the
>>         problem is the difficulty of finding TBAA violations. A
>>         sanitizer would help.
>>
>>         A design goal of a TBAA sanitizer is to limit the
>>         shadow-memory overhead of the implementation. ASan, for
>>         example, uses 1 bit per byte. Here we're hoping to keep the
>>         overhead down to 2 bits per byte for the TBAA sanitizing. We
>>         might be able to do this, while handling all common types on
>>         the fast path, if we use both alignment and type information.
>>         When accessing data of B bytes, 2*B bits of shadow memory can
>>         be used. Thus, we'll get 2 bits for a one-byte type, 4 bits
>>         for a two-byte type, etc. Moreover, we need appropriate holes
>>         in the encoding space so that no type has a shadow encoding
>>         that overlaps with an aligned part of a larger type's
encoding.
>>         For example, we need to detect:
>>
>>           double f = ...; return *(int*) &f; // We should catch
this.
>>
>>         We might use the following encoding. The idea is that the
>>         common case, for which we need a reasonable fast path, is
>>         that type types are exactly equal. For this case, we want a
>>         simple comparison of the shadow type encodings to be
>>         sufficient to validate the access. For cases where the
>>         encodings don't match (and isn't zero to indicate an
unknown
>>         type), or for which there is no direct encoding for the
>>         access type, a slow path must be used. All of this assumes
>>         that we're validating the the pointer alignment first, and
>>         then checking the type encodings.
>>
>>         1 Byte:
>>         00 = 0  = unknown type
>>         01 = 1 = hole
>>         10 = 2 = hole
>>         11 = 3  = all one-byte types (slow path, see note later on
this)
>>
>>         2 Bytes:
>>         0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>         0101 = 5 = short
>>         0110 = 6 = hole (A)
>>         0111 = 7 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>>         1001 = 9 = hole (B)
>>         1010 = 10 = hole (C)
>>         1011 = 11 = char16_t
>>         1111 = 15 = all other types (slow path)
>>
>>         It is important here to have wchar_t have a direct encoding
>>         here because wchar_t is two bytes on Windows, and moreover,
>>         wchar_t is very commonly used on Windows. The partial
>>         encoding overlap of wchar_t (i.e. 0111) with the 11
>>         one-byte-type encoding works because 11 always indicates a
>>         slow-path check.
>>
>>         4 Bytes:
>>         0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>         A A = int
>>         A B = float
>>         B A  = pointer (under some ABIs)
>>         B B = long (under some ABIs)
>>         A 1111 = wchar_t (under some ABIs)
>>         B 1111 = char32_t
>>         A C = hole (D)
>>         C A = hole (E)
>>         B C = hole (F)
>>         C B = hole (G)
>>         C C = hole (H)
>>         1111 1111 = 255 = all other types (slow path)
>>
>>         8 Bytes:
>>         0000 0000 0000 0000 = 0 = unknown type
>>         D D = double
>>         D E = long (under some ABIs)
>>         E D = long long (under some ABIs)
>>         E E = long double (under some ABIs)
>>         D F = pointer (under some ABIs)
>>         F D = hole (I)
>>         E F = hole (J)
>>         F E = hole
>>         F F = hole
>>         ...
>>         1111 1111 1111 1111 = 65535 = all other types
>>
>>         16 Bytes:
>>         0 = unknown type
>>         | | = __int128_t
>>         I J = long long (under some ABIs)
>>         J I = long double (under some ABIs)
>>         J J = hole
>>         ...
>>         -1 = all other types
>>
>>         For pointers, this scheme would consider all pointers to be
>>         the same (regardless of pointee type). Doing otherwise would
>>         mostly requiring putting pointer-type checking on the slow
>>         path (i.e. access via a pointer pointer), and that could add
>>         considerable overhead. We might, however, split out function
>>         pointers from other pointers. We could provide a compile-time
>>         option to control the granularity of pointer-type checks.
>>
>>         Builtin vector types for which the vector element type has a
>>         direct encoding also naturally have a direct encoding (the
>>         concatenation of the encoding for the element type).
>>
>>         Obviously the fact that we have no fast-path encodings for
>>         one-byte types could be problematic. Note however that:
>>
>>          1. If a larger type is being used to access a smaller type
>>         (plus more), the encodings won't match, so we always end up
>>         on the slow path.
>>
>>          2. If the access type is a one-byte type, we would want to
>>         validate quickly. However, most common one-byte types are
>>         universally aliasing (i.e. not subject to TBAA violations).
>>         Specifically, for C/C++, pointers to char, unsigned char,
>>         signed char (C only), and std::byte, can be used to access
>>         any part of any type. That leaves signed char (C++ only),
>>         bool/_Bool, and enums with a [signed/unsigned] char base type
>>         (C++ only, std::byte exempted) as pointee types we might wish
>>         to validate. We'd always need to fall back to the slow path
>>         to validate these. We could provide a compile-time option to
>>         disable such one-byte access checking if necessary.
>>
>>         How would the slow path work? First, the code needs to find
>>         the beginning of the allocation. It can do this by scanning
>>         backwards in the ASan shadow memory. Once located, we'll
read
>>         a pointer to a type-description structure from that "red
>>         zone" location. For dynamic allocations, ASan's
allocator
>>         will ensure such a space for the pointer exists. For static
>>         allocations and globals, the compiler will ensure it exists.
>>         The compiler will make sure that all constructors locate this
>>         field and fill it in. Destructors can clear it. If two of
>>         these type-description-structure pointers are equal, then we
>>         can conclude that the types are equal. If not, then we need
>>         to interpret the structure. The pointer itself might be to an
>>         interval map (to deal with arrays, placement new, etc. - we
>>         can use the low bit of the pointer to differentiate between
>>         an actual type-description structure and an interval map),
>>         and the leaves of the interval map point to actual
>>         type-description structures. The type-description structure
>>         is an array of (offset, type) pairs, where the type field is
>>         also a type-description-structure pointer. The
>>         type-description structures themselves are comdat globals
>>         emitted in each relevant translation unit, where the comdat
>>         key is formed using the mangled type name (and size, etc.),
>>         and pointers to these symbols are then used to identify the
>>         types.
>>
>>         Thoughts?
>>
>>         Thanks again,
>>         Hal
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Hal Finkel
>>         Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>>         Leadership Computing Facility
>>         Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         LLVM Developers mailing list
>>         llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
>>         http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>         <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>>
>>
>
>     -- 
>     Hal Finkel
>     Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>     Leadership Computing Facility
>     Argonne National Laboratory
>
>
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170411/ea656691/attachment.html>