From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [CHKP, PATCH] Fix instrumented indirect calls with propagated pointers
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:39:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc2b3GBhtGk4=ayRqZj1Y+KfhJHwDhd5GQvaVMz0_4vc=w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMbmDYZ4dAG_SidQKsj-M+VovhZgtVZCVrXTLe8aezabPi2UYA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-03-24 17:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the different cases,
>>> in particular a TU compiled with -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link without
>>> that, or TU compiled without -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link with it.
>>> It could be handled as LTO incompatible option, where lto1 would error out
>>> if you try to mix -fcheck-pointer-bounds with -fno-check-pointer-bounds
>>> code, or e.g. similar to var-tracking, you could consider adjusting the IL
>>> upon LTO reading if if some TU has been built with -fcheck-pointer-bounds
>>> and the LTO link is -fno-check-pointer-bounds. Dunno what will happen
>>> with -fno-check-pointer-bounds TUs LTO linked with -fcheck-pointer-bounds.
>>> Or another possibility is to or in -fcheck-pointer-bounds from all TUs.
>>>
>>>> Maybe replace attribute usage with a new flag in tree_decl_with_vis structure?
>>>
>>> Depends, might be better to stick it into cgraph_node instead, depends on
>>> whether you are querying it already early in the FEs or just during GIMPLE
>>> when the cgraph node should be created too.
>>
>> I also wonder why it is necessary to execute pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes
>> when mpx is not active.
>>
>> That is, can we guard that properly in
>>
>> void
>> pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes ()
>> {
>> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_build_ssa_passes_1->sub);
>> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub);
>> execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_local_optimization_passes_1->sub);
>> }
>
> I'm worried about new functions generated in LTO. But with re-created
> flag_check_pointer_bounds it should be safe to guard it.
>
>>
>> (why's that so oddly wrapped?)
>>
>> class pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes
>>
>> also has no gate that guards with flag_mpx or so.
>>
>> That would save a IL walk over all functions (fixup_cfg) and a cgraph
>> edge rebuild.
>
> Right. Will fix it.
I am already testing
Index: gcc/passes.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/passes.c (revision 221633)
+++ gcc/passes.c (working copy)
@@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void
pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes ()
{
execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_build_ssa_passes_1->sub);
- execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub);
+ if (flag_check_pointer_bounds)
+ execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes_1->sub);
execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_local_optimization_passes_1->sub);
}
@@ -424,7 +425,8 @@ public:
virtual bool gate (function *)
{
/* Don't bother doing anything if the program has errors. */
- return (!seen_error () && !in_lto_p);
+ return (flag_check_pointer_bounds
+ && !seen_error () && !in_lto_p);
}
}; // class pass_chkp_instrumentation_passes
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Ilya
>
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-25 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-12 11:13 Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-19 8:30 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-24 8:33 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-24 9:22 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-24 14:06 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-24 14:40 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 8:50 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 9:39 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2015-03-25 9:50 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-25 10:06 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 10:11 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-25 10:20 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 10:15 ` Richard Biener
2015-03-25 10:24 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 8:05 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-03-25 8:16 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-03-25 8:56 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-04-02 16:28 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-04-10 1:28 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-04-14 14:35 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-05 8:06 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-19 9:40 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-26 13:11 ` Ilya Enkovich
2015-05-29 6:49 ` Jan Hubicka
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='CAFiYyc2b3GBhtGk4=ayRqZj1Y+KfhJHwDhd5GQvaVMz0_4vc=w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=enkovich.gnu@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.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).