similar to: Intel MPX support (instrumentation pass similar to gcc's Pointer Checker)

Dmitrii, all, Please note, that GCC 5.3 had a significant update to the MPX code quality - please, use this version as reference. Regards, Sergos On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb

Hello, even though the study of Intel MPX took much longer than expected, we have finally finished it. Currently, it is published in two formats: * as a technical report: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00719 * and as a webpage: https://intel-mpx.github.io/ This work contains evaluation of MPX from perspectives of performance (Phoenix, PARSEC, and SPEC benchmark suites), security (RIPE and found

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Recently I played with MPX support on Intel C/C++ Compiler (icc). This > >> implementation looks *much* better, with the following example > >> overheads: 1.2X on "raytrace", 1.25X on "bodytrack", 1.08X on > >> "streamcluster".

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers. > All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10 > (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The > benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default

I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a real hardware, my recent impressions are here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions (there is also some old pre-hardware content). In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster. (Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased) I am glad

> First, is MPX hardware available now? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on > one. It is available at least in the mobile versions of the recent Intel Skylake CPUs. I am currently playing with Alienware 15 R2 with the following CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HK. Interestingly, my preliminary experiments indicate that adding MPX bounds checking via Pointer Checker in gcc is usually

Hello all, I was looking for an analysis pass that could provide comprehensive information on pointer arithmetic in the context of whole-program optimization. It seems that Scalar Evolution provides exactly what I'm looking for, but it is restricted to only intraprocedural analysis. E.g., consider this toy snippet: void foo(int* p) { (*p)++; } int bar() { int i; for (i = 0; i < n;

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:28, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall < > David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at

On 10 Sep 2013, at 12:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Well, ok, you can treat this as a 192-bit fat pointer, but AFAICT this is not the real intention of the MPX developers > since a fat pointer will break all ABIs, and MPX tries to preserve them. MPX is an implementation of the HardBound concept from UPenn, where this was a design goal (see also their 'low-fat

On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > ... > > My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction, > just like XOR or ADD, > so the overhead should be relatively small. > Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous. > And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has. > Do you have any measurements to

On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:28, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > How did you come with 320 bits? > > 320=64*4+64, which is the size of the metadata table entry plus

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > How did you come with 320 bits? > > 320=64*4+64, which is the size of the metadata table entry plus pointer > size, > > > Sorry, that should have been 192. The specification allows the

Hi, I previously posted about using 32-bit X86 segmentation to harden SafeStack: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-May/100346.html That involves lowering the limits of the DS and ES segments that are used for ordinary data accesses while leaving the limit for SS, the stack segment, set to its maximum value. The safe stacks were clustered above the limits of DS and ES. Thus, by

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > We're also interested in support for fat pointers in LLVM/clang and it > would be nice to have some general infrastructure for them (we currently > have a load of hacks). There are a lot of research architectures with fat > pointers, and MPX is likely to be just

From 291adaf4ad6174c5641a7239c1801373e92e9975 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@intel.com> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:26:06 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v4 3/7] X86: MPX IA32_BNDCFGS msr handle When MPX supported, a new guest-state field for IA32_BNDCFGS is added to the VMCS. In addition, two new controls are added: - a VM-exit control called "clear BNDCFGS" - a

Hi Kevin, We're also interested in support for fat pointers in LLVM/clang and it would be nice to have some general infrastructure for them (we currently have a load of hacks). There are a lot of research architectures with fat pointers, and MPX is likely to be just the first of many to start hitting real silicon soon. There are a few properties that we'd ideally want to represent in

I am a newcomer to Centos and could benefit from some help. I am repurposing an older server and installed Centos 6.7 on a Tyan Tiger MPX 2466 motherboard. The installation went flawlessly but the graphics chip on the motherboard is obviously quite old, a Matrix Millennium MGA 2064W, and the slow default driver (VESA?) was installed. Is a faster video driver available? It would be nice to be

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie of llvm. I'm trying to insert Intel MPX instruction BNDCU with BuildMI. I add my machinefunctionpass at addPreEmitPass2. Here is the code of insertion: BuildMI(MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(X86::BNDCU64rr)).addReg(X86::BND2, RegState::Define).addReg(X86::R10); And here is to stack track when I compiler program with modified llc:

On 10 Sep 2013, at 10:13, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > How did you come with 320 bits? > 320=64*4+64, which is the size of the metadata table entry plus pointer size, Sorry, that should have been 192. The specification allows the metadata to be stored either in look-aside tables or explicitly managed. The tables impose a very large storage space penalty, so are

Hi John, On 25 May 2016 at 16:11, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pierre, > > Stepping up a level, what is your goal in replacing calls to malloc() and > free()? Is it any different than what SAFECode, SoftBound, or ASan do? > That's a good question. I didn't knew about SoftBound until now, so thank you for the name =). Anyway here is what I