From: Hongtao Liu <crazylht@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com>
Cc: liuhongt <hongtao.liu@intel.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide -fcf-protection=branch,return.
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 14:21:45 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZc-bxNdnzPecb6nO7gWXG27ChDU-dGwdSeJc0TiVvhdbumew@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+=Sn1k_UaOvnXkBQo_3eYM2wv7+NbhEJd==eGGmU4aTqNK5uw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 1:50 PM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:45 PM liuhongt via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu{-m32,}.
> > Ok for trunk?
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > PR target/89701
> > * common.opt: Refactor -fcf-protection= to support combination
> > of param.
> > * lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Adjusted.
> > * opts.c (parse_cf_protection_options): New.
> > (common_handle_option): Decode argument for -fcf-protection=.
> > * opts.h (parse_cf_protection_options): Declare.
>
> I think this could be simplified if you use either EnumSet or
> EnumBitSet instead in common.opt for `-fcf-protection=`.
Thanks, I didn't know that, i'll try to refactor the patch to EnumSet
or EnumBitSet
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> >
> > PR target/89701
> > * c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c: New test.
> > * c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c: New test.
> > * c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c: New test.
> > * gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c: New test.
> > ---
> > gcc/common.opt | 24 ++----
> > gcc/lto-wrapper.cc | 21 +++--
> > gcc/opts.cc | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
> > gcc/opts.h | 1 +
> > .../c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c | 3 +
> > .../c-c++-common/fcf-protection-11.c | 2 +
> > .../c-c++-common/fcf-protection-12.c | 2 +
> > gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c | 3 +
> > gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c | 3 +
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c | 4 +
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c | 4 +
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c | 5 ++
> > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c | 5 ++
> > 13 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-11.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-12.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c
> > create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/common.opt b/gcc/common.opt
> > index a28ca13385a..ac12da52733 100644
> > --- a/gcc/common.opt
> > +++ b/gcc/common.opt
> > @@ -229,6 +229,10 @@ bool dump_base_name_prefixed = false
> > Variable
> > unsigned int flag_zero_call_used_regs
> >
> > +;; What the CF check should instrument
> > +Variable
> > +unsigned int flag_cf_protection = 0
> > +
> > ###
> > Driver
> >
> > @@ -1886,28 +1890,10 @@ fcf-protection
> > Common RejectNegative Alias(fcf-protection=,full)
> >
> > fcf-protection=
> > -Common Joined RejectNegative Enum(cf_protection_level) Var(flag_cf_protection) Init(CF_NONE)
> > +Common Joined
> > -fcf-protection=[full|branch|return|none|check] Instrument functions with checks to verify jump/call/return control-flow transfer
> > instructions have valid targets.
> >
> > -Enum
> > -Name(cf_protection_level) Type(enum cf_protection_level) UnknownError(unknown Control-Flow Protection Level %qs)
> > -
> > -EnumValue
> > -Enum(cf_protection_level) String(full) Value(CF_FULL)
> > -
> > -EnumValue
> > -Enum(cf_protection_level) String(branch) Value(CF_BRANCH)
> > -
> > -EnumValue
> > -Enum(cf_protection_level) String(return) Value(CF_RETURN)
> > -
> > -EnumValue
> > -Enum(cf_protection_level) String(check) Value(CF_CHECK)
> > -
> > -EnumValue
> > -Enum(cf_protection_level) String(none) Value(CF_NONE)
> > -
> > finstrument-functions
> > Common Var(flag_instrument_function_entry_exit,1)
> > Instrument function entry and exit with profiling calls.
> > diff --git a/gcc/lto-wrapper.cc b/gcc/lto-wrapper.cc
> > index 5186d040ce0..568c8af659d 100644
> > --- a/gcc/lto-wrapper.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/lto-wrapper.cc
> > @@ -359,26 +359,33 @@ merge_and_complain (vec<cl_decoded_option> &decoded_options,
> > case OPT_fcf_protection_:
> > /* Default to link-time option, else append or check identical. */
> > if (!cf_protection_option
> > - || cf_protection_option->value == CF_CHECK)
> > + || !memcmp (cf_protection_option->arg, "check", 5))
> > {
> > + const char* parg = decoded_options[existing_opt].arg;
> > if (existing_opt == -1)
> > decoded_options.safe_push (*foption);
> > - else if (decoded_options[existing_opt].value != foption->value)
> > + else if ((strlen (parg) != strlen (foption->arg))
> > + || memcmp (parg, foption->arg, strlen (foption->arg)))
> > {
> > if (cf_protection_option
> > - && cf_protection_option->value == CF_CHECK)
> > + && !memcmp (cf_protection_option->arg, "check", 5))
> > fatal_error (input_location,
> > "option %qs with mismatching values"
> > " (%s, %s)",
> > "-fcf-protection",
> > - decoded_options[existing_opt].arg,
> > + parg,
> > foption->arg);
> > else
> > {
> > /* Merge and update the -fcf-protection option. */
> > - decoded_options[existing_opt].value
> > - &= (foption->value & CF_FULL);
> > - switch (decoded_options[existing_opt].value)
> > + HOST_WIDE_INT flags1
> > + = parse_cf_protection_options (foption->arg,
> > + input_location);
> > + HOST_WIDE_INT flags2
> > + = parse_cf_protection_options (parg,
> > + input_location);
> > + flags2 &= (flags1 & CF_FULL);
> > + switch (flags2)
> > {
> > case CF_NONE:
> > decoded_options[existing_opt].arg = "none";
> > diff --git a/gcc/opts.cc b/gcc/opts.cc
> > index 86b94d62b58..6389383bc92 100644
> > --- a/gcc/opts.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/opts.cc
> > @@ -2187,6 +2187,81 @@ get_closest_sanitizer_option (const string_fragment &arg,
> > return bm.get_best_meaningful_candidate ();
> > }
> >
> > +unsigned int
> > +parse_cf_protection_options (const char *p, location_t loc)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int flags = 0;
> > + bool combined = false;
> > + while (*p != 0)
> > + {
> > + size_t len;
> > + const char *comma = strchr (p, ',');
> > + if (comma == NULL)
> > + len = strlen (p);
> > + else
> > + {
> > + combined = true;
> > + len = comma - p;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (len == 0)
> > + {
> > + p = comma + 1;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + switch (len)
> > + {
> > + case 4:
> > + if (!memcmp (p, "full", 4))
> > + {
> > + if (combined && flags != CF_NONE)
> > + warning_at (loc, 0, "better to use %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: full alone instead of in a combination");
> > + flags |= CF_FULL;
> > + }
> > + else if (!memcmp (p, "none", 4))
> > + {
> > + if (combined && flags != CF_NONE)
> > + warning_at (loc, 0, "combination of %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: none is ignored");
> > + }
> > + else
> > + error_at (loc, "unrecognized argument to %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: %.4s", p);
> > + break;
> > + case 5:
> > + if (!memcmp (p, "check", 5))
> > + {
> > + if (combined && flags != CF_CHECK)
> > + error_at (loc, "Combination for %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: check is not valid");
> > + flags |= CF_CHECK;
> > + }
> > + else
> > + error_at (loc, "unrecognized argument to %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: %.5s", p);
> > + break;
> > + case 6:
> > + if (!memcmp (p, "branch", 6))
> > + flags |= CF_BRANCH;
> > + else if (!memcmp (p, "return", 6))
> > + flags |= CF_RETURN;
> > + else
> > + error_at (loc, "unrecognized argument to %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: %.6s", p);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + error_at (loc, "unrecognized argument to %<-fcf-protection=%> "
> > + "option: %.*s", (int) len, p);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (comma == NULL)
> > + break;
> > + p = comma + 1;
> > + }
> > + return flags;
> > +}
> > /* Parse comma separated sanitizer suboptions from P for option SCODE,
> > adjust previous FLAGS and return new ones. If COMPLAIN is false,
> > don't issue diagnostics. */
> > @@ -2671,6 +2746,10 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options *opts,
> > case OPT__completion_:
> > break;
> >
> > + case OPT_fcf_protection_:
> > + opts->x_flag_cf_protection
> > + = parse_cf_protection_options (arg, loc);
> > + break;
> > case OPT_fsanitize_:
> > opts_set->x_flag_sanitize = true;
> > opts->x_flag_sanitize
> > diff --git a/gcc/opts.h b/gcc/opts.h
> > index 9959a440ca1..00d396d95f8 100644
> > --- a/gcc/opts.h
> > +++ b/gcc/opts.h
> > @@ -425,6 +425,7 @@ extern void control_warning_option (unsigned int opt_index, int kind,
> > extern char *write_langs (unsigned int mask);
> > extern void print_ignored_options (void);
> > extern void handle_common_deferred_options (void);
> > +extern unsigned int parse_cf_protection_options (const char*, location_t);
> > unsigned int parse_sanitizer_options (const char *, location_t, int,
> > unsigned int, int, bool);
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..8692a08374b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-10.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,check" } */
> > +/* { dg-error "Combination for '-fcf-protection=' option: check is not valid" "" { target *-*-* } 0 } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-11.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-11.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..2e566350ccd
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-11.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,return" } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-12.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-12.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..b39c2f8e25d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-12.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=return,branch" } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..33e46223b6b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-8.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,none" } */
> > +/* { dg-warning "combination of '-fcf-protection=' option: none is ignored" "" { target { *-*-* } } 0 } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..7848fe4b959
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/fcf-protection-9.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target { "i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*" } } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,full" } */
> > +/* { dg-warning "better to use '-fcf-protection=' option: full alone instead of in a combination" "" { target { *-*-* } } 0 } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..1879c9ab4d8
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-1.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,return" } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".note.gnu.property" 1 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".long 0x3" 1 } } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..d5100575028
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-2.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=return,branch" } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".note.gnu.property" 1 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".long 0x3" 1 } } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..1505051a2bb
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-3.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=return,none" } */
> > +/* { dg-warning "combination of '-fcf-protection=' option: none is ignored" "" { target { *-*-linux* } } 0 } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".note.gnu.property" 1 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".long 0x2" 1 } } */
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..242b8810abb
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr89701-4.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > +/* { dg-do compile { target *-*-linux* } } */
> > +/* { dg-options "-fcf-protection=branch,none" } */
> > +/* { dg-warning "combination of '-fcf-protection=' option: none is ignored" "" { target { *-*-* } } 0 } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".note.gnu.property" 1 } } */
> > +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times ".long 0x1" 1 } } */
> > --
> > 2.39.1.388.g2fc9e9ca3c
> >
--
BR,
Hongtao
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-12 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-12 5:42 liuhongt
2023-05-12 5:49 ` Andrew Pinski
2023-05-12 6:21 ` Hongtao Liu [this message]
2023-05-13 9:20 ` [PATCH V2] " liuhongt
2023-05-22 8:08 ` Hongtao Liu
2023-07-12 7:27 ` Hongtao Liu
2023-07-19 8:37 ` Hongtao Liu
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=CAMZc-bxNdnzPecb6nO7gWXG27ChDU-dGwdSeJc0TiVvhdbumew@mail.gmail.com \
--to=crazylht@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hongtao.liu@intel.com \
--cc=pinskia@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).