From: "Martin Liška" <mliska@suse.cz>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
Cc: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com>,
Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Sanitize equals and hash functions in hash-tables.
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4e546ac2-bb41-42bd-6b12-72e4f5c08d5d@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc2sVwtXn=S+8E+iOdAJ+1Tn3HBeRG9iOLmd25031MMdYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/24/19 2:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:08 AM Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:04 AM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/7/19 10:57 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:35 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/1/19 12:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/19 3:13 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/19 1:51 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:02 PM Martin Liška <mliska@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/19 11:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:07 AM Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/19 1:41 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/18 9:56 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/18 11:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/18 6:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/18 11:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 04:14:21PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +hashtab_chk_error ()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + fprintf (stderr, "hash table checking failed: "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "equal operator returns true for a pair "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "of values with a different hash value");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, either use internal_error here, or at least if using fprintf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate with \n, in your recent mail I saw:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...different hash valueduring RTL pass: vartrack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, fixed in attached patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + gcc_unreachable ();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0001-Sanitize-equals-and-hash-functions-in-hash-tables.patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From 0d9c979c845580a98767b83c099053d36eb49bb9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: marxin <mliska@suse.cz>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:38:21 +0100
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Sanitize equals and hash functions in hash-tables.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gcc/hash-table.h | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gcc/hash-table.h b/gcc/hash-table.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index bd83345c7b8..694eedfc4be 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/gcc/hash-table.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/gcc/hash-table.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -503,6 +503,7 @@ private:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value_type *alloc_entries (size_t n CXX_MEM_STAT_INFO) const;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value_type *find_empty_slot_for_expand (hashval_t);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + void verify (const compare_type &comparable, hashval_t hash);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bool too_empty_p (unsigned int);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void expand ();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static bool is_deleted (value_type &v)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -882,8 +883,12 @@ hash_table<Descriptor, Allocator>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (insert == INSERT && m_size * 3 <= m_n_elements * 4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expand ();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - m_searches++;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#if ENABLE_EXTRA_CHECKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (insert == INSERT)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + verify (comparable, hash);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + m_searches++;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value_type *first_deleted_slot = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashval_t index = hash_table_mod1 (hash, m_size_prime_index);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hashval_t hash2 = hash_table_mod2 (hash, m_size_prime_index);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -930,6 +935,39 @@ hash_table<Descriptor, Allocator>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return &m_entries[index];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#if ENABLE_EXTRA_CHECKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Report a hash table checking error. */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +ATTRIBUTE_NORETURN ATTRIBUTE_COLD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static void
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +hashtab_chk_error ()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + fprintf (stderr, "hash table checking failed: "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "equal operator returns true for a pair "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + "of values with a different hash value\n");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + gcc_unreachable ();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think an internal_error here is probably still better than a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fprintf, even if the fprintf is terminated with a \n :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fully agree with that, but I see a lot of build errors when using internal_error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question then becomes can we bootstrap with this stuff enabled and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not, are we likely to soon? It'd be a shame to put it into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EXTRA_CHECKING, but then not be able to really use EXTRA_CHECKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we've got too many bugs to fix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately it's blocked with these 2 PRs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87845
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87847
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just added one more PR:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90450
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sending updated version of the patch that provides a disablement for the 3 PRs
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a new function disable_sanitize_eq_and_hash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> With that I can bootstrap and finish tests. However, I've done that with a patch
>>>>>>>>>>>> limits maximal number of checks:
>>>>>>>>>>> So rather than call the disable_sanitize_eq_and_hash, can you have its
>>>>>>>>>>> state set up when you instantiate the object? It's not a huge deal,
>>>>>>>>>>> just thinking about loud.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So how do we want to go forward, particularly the EXTRA_EXTRA checking
>>>>>>>>>>> issue :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is at least one PR where we have a table where elements _in_ the
>>>>>>>>>> table are never compared against each other but always against another
>>>>>>>>>> object (I guess that's usual even), but the setup is in a way that the
>>>>>>>>>> comparison function only works with those. With the patch we verify
>>>>>>>>>> hashing/comparison for something that is never used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So - wouldn't it be more "correct" to only verify comparison/hashing
>>>>>>>>>> at lookup time, using the object from the lookup and verify that against
>>>>>>>>>> all other elements?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't a have problem with that. Apparently this changes fixes
>>>>>>>>> PR90450 and PR87847.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changes from previous version:
>>>>>>>>> - verification happens only when an element is searched (not inserted)
>>>>>>>>> - new argument 'sanitize_eq_and_hash' added for hash_table::hash_table
>>>>>>>>> - new param has been introduced hash-table-verification-limit in order
>>>>>>>>> to limit number of elements that are compared within a table
>>>>>>>>> - verification happens only with flag_checking >= 2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been bootstrapping and testing the patch right now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like I misremembered the original patch. The issue isn't
>>>>>>>> comparing random two elements in the table.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That it fixes PR90450 is because LIM never calls find_slot_with_hash
>>>>>>>> without INSERTing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's updated version of the patch where I check all find operations
>>>>>>> (both w/ and w/o insertion).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests
>>>>>>> except for:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $ ./xgcc -B. /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr63941.c -O2 -c
>>>>>>> hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value
>>>>>>> during GIMPLE pass: lim
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr63941.c: In function âfn1â:
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr63941.c:6:1: internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.h:1019
>>>>>>> 6 | fn1 ()
>>>>>>> | ^~~
>>>>>>> 0x6c5725 hashtab_chk_error
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/hash-table.h:1019
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea hash_table<mem_ref_hasher, false, xcallocator>::verify(ao_ref* const&, unsigned int)
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/hash-table.h:1040
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea hash_table<mem_ref_hasher, false, xcallocator>::find_slot_with_hash(ao_ref* const&, unsigned int, insert_option)
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/hash-table.h:960
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea gather_mem_refs_stmt
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c:1501
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea analyze_memory_references
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c:1625
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea tree_ssa_lim
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c:2646
>>>>>>> 0xe504ea execute
>>>>>>> /home/marxin/Programming/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-im.c:2708
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richi: it's after your recent patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For some reason I don't see PR87847 issue any longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May I install the patch with disabled sanitization in tree-ssa-loop-im.c ?
>>>>>> Don't we still need to deal with the naked fprintf when there's a
>>>>>> failure. ie, shouldn't we be raising it with a gcc_assert or somesuch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good point, I've just adjusted that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ready to be installed?
>>>>
>>>> Ugh, the cselib one is really bad. But I don't hold my breath for anyone
>>>> fixing it ...
>>>
>>> Yes :D It's been some time and there's no interest in the PR.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> One question - there's unconditional
>>>>
>>>> + if (m_sanitize_eq_and_hash)
>>>> + verify (comparable, hash);
>>>>
>>>> which will read a global variable and have (possibly not inline) call
>>>> to verify on a common path even with checking disabled. So I think
>>>> we want to compile this checking feature out for !CHECKING_P
>>>> or at least make the if __builtin_expect (..., 0), ::verify not
>>>> inlined and marked pure () (thus, !CHECKING_P is simplest ;)).
>>>
>>> Fixed. May I install the patch? The cselib issue can be solved later..
>>
>> After this patch, when I do a configure with --disable-bootstrap, and
>> build with "gcc (Debian 7.3.0-18) 7.3.0", I get a lot of warnings of
>> the form
>>
>> In file included from ../../gccgo3/gcc/coretypes.h:440:0,
>> from ../../gccgo3/gcc/go/go-system.h:137,
>> from ../../gccgo3/gcc/go/gofrontend/go.cc:7:
>> ../../gccgo3/gcc/hash-table.h:1017:1: warning: âvoid
>> hashtab_chk_error()â defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
>> hashtab_chk_error ()
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> These are just warnings, since I am using --disable-bootstrap, but
>> they are distracting.
>>
>> This patch fixes it. OK for trunk?
>
> Hmm, the function is called exactly once. I guess the intent was
> to not emit the printf in every ::verify instance but then why not
> instantiate this function in just hash-table.c and not mark it inline?
I marked the function ATTRIBUTE_COLD, so it should not be inlined
into ::verify.
1013 /* Report a hash table checking error. */
1014
1015 ATTRIBUTE_NORETURN ATTRIBUTE_COLD
1016 static void
1017 hashtab_chk_error ()
1018 {
1019 fprintf (stderr, "hash table checking failed: "
1020 "equal operator returns true for a pair "
1021 "of values with a different hash value\n");
1022 gcc_unreachable ();
1023 }
Martin
>
> Richard.
>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> 2019-06-23 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@golang.org>
>>
>> * hash-table.h (hashtab_chk_error): Add ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-29 12:02 Martin Liška
2018-10-29 14:28 ` Alexander Monakov
2018-10-29 15:56 ` Martin Liška
2018-10-30 10:32 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-10-30 14:17 ` Martin Liška
2018-11-07 22:24 ` Jeff Law
2018-11-07 22:44 ` Jakub Jelinek
2018-11-08 8:56 ` Martin Liška
2019-05-13 7:42 ` Martin Liška
2019-05-20 17:26 ` Jason Merrill
2019-05-20 22:07 ` Jeff Law
2019-05-21 9:38 ` Richard Biener
2019-05-21 11:02 ` Martin Liška
2019-05-21 11:52 ` Richard Biener
2019-05-22 9:13 ` Martin Liška
2019-05-31 13:23 ` Richard Biener
2019-05-31 13:35 ` Martin Liška
2019-05-31 22:10 ` Jeff Law
2019-06-03 13:35 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-07 8:57 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-07 12:04 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-07 12:09 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-07 12:13 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-07 14:48 ` Martin Sebor
2019-06-07 21:43 ` Jason Merrill
2019-06-10 7:08 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-10 18:22 ` Jason Merrill
2019-06-11 7:41 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-11 12:28 ` Jason Merrill
2019-06-11 13:16 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-11 19:02 ` Jason Merrill
2019-06-12 7:59 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-12 8:02 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-12 9:15 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-12 9:41 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-12 11:45 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-12 12:50 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-12 13:05 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-23 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2019-06-24 12:29 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-24 13:51 ` Martin Liška [this message]
2019-06-24 14:10 ` Richard Biener
2019-06-25 10:25 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-25 11:59 ` Martin Liška
2019-06-25 14:23 ` Richard Biener
2018-10-30 10:25 ` hash-table violation in cselib.c Martin Liška
2018-11-01 11:57 ` Martin Liška
2018-10-30 10:46 ` hash-table violation in gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c Martin Liška
2018-10-31 10:00 ` Trevor Saunders
2018-10-31 10:18 ` Martin Liška
2018-10-30 11:07 ` hash-table violation in gcc/cp/pt.c Martin Liška
2018-10-30 11:21 ` Martin Liška
2018-11-01 12:06 ` Martin Liška
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4e546ac2-bb41-42bd-6b12-72e4f5c08d5d@suse.cz \
--to=mliska@suse.cz \
--cc=amonakov@ispras.ru \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=iant@golang.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=mjambor@suse.cz \
--cc=nathan@acm.org \
--cc=paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).