Re: [PATCH] [PR target/96350]Force ENDBR immediate into memory to avoid fake ENDBR opcode.

[Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:36 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:38 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 5:30 AM Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi:
> > >   The issue is described in the bugzilla.
> > >   Bootstrap is ok, regression test for i386/x86-64 backend is ok.
> > >   Ok for trunk?
> > >
> > > ChangeLog
> > > gcc/
> > >         PR target/96350
> > >         * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_legitimate_constant_p): Return
> > >         false for ENDBR immediate.
> > >         (ix86_legitimate_address_p): Ditto.
> > >         * config/i386/predicated.md
> > >         (x86_64_immediate_operand): Exclude ENDBR immediate.
> > >         (x86_64_zext_immediate_operand): Ditto.
> > >         (x86_64_dwzext_immediate_operand): Ditto.
> > >         (ix86_not_endbr_immediate_operand): New predicate.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite
> > >         * gcc.target/i386/endbr_immediate.c: New test.
> >
> > +;; Return true if VALUE isn't an ENDBR opcode in immediate field.
> > +(define_predicate "ix86_not_endbr_immediate_operand"
> > +  (match_test "1")
> >
> > Please reverse the above logic to introduce
> > ix86_endbr_immediate_operand, that returns true for unwanted
> > immediate. Something like:
> >
> > (define_predicate "ix86_endbr_immediate_operand"
> >   (match_code "const_int")
> > ...
> >
> > And you will be able to use it like:
> >
> > if (ix86_endbr_immediate_operand (x, VOIDmode)
> >   return false;
> >
>
> Changed.

No, it is not.

+  if ((flag_cf_protection & CF_BRANCH)
+      && CONST_INT_P (op))

You don't need to check for const ints here.

And please rewrite the body of the function to something like (untested):

{
  unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT val = TARGET_64BIT ? 0xfa1e0ff3 : 0xfb1e0ff3;

  if (x == val)
    return 1;

  if (TARGET_64BIT)
    for (; x >= val; x >>= 8)
      if (x == val)
        return 1;

  return 0;
}

so it will at least *look* like some thoughts have been spent on this.
I don't plan to review the code where it is obvious from the first
look that it was thrown together in a hurry. Please get some internal
company signoff first. Ping me in a week for a review.

Uros.
>
> >    /* Otherwise we handle everything else in the move patterns.  */
> > -  return true;
> > +  return ix86_not_endbr_immediate_operand (x, VOIDmode);
> >  }
> >
> > Please handle this in CASE_CONST_SCALAR_INT: part.
> >
> > +  if (disp && !ix86_not_endbr_immediate_operand (disp, VOIDmode))
> > +    return false;
> >
> > And this in:
> >
> >   /* Validate displacement.  */
> >   if (disp)
> >     {
> >
>
> Changed.

A better place for these new special cases is at the beginning of the
part I referred, not at the end.

Uros.