From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>,
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Subject: [PATCH #2v2/2] strub: sparc64: unbias the stack address [PR112917]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 20:51:13 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <orplz13g5q.fsf_-_@lxoliva.fsfla.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc2-Ab=u6sXCDV2LP0tpQfzv++p7c7DZferRZETab7yDhg@mail.gmail.com> (Richard Biener's message of "Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:26:08 +0100")
On Dec 15, 2023, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> It might be worth amending the documentation in case this
> is unexpected to users?
Oh, yes indeed, thanks!
Here's a patch that brings relevant parts of the implementation comment
to the user-facing documentation, so that it reflects the change in
implementation.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu. Ok to install?
strub: sparc64: unbias the stack address [PR112917]
The stack pointer is biased by 2047 bytes on sparc64, so the range it
delimits is way off. Unbias the addresses returned by
__builtin_stack_address (), so that the strub builtins, inlined or
not, can function correctly. I've considered introducing a new target
macro, but using STACK_POINTER_OFFSET seems safe, and it enables the
register save areas to be scrubbed as well.
Because of the large fixed-size outgoing args area next to the
register save area on sparc, we still need __strub_leave to not
allocate its own frame, otherwise it won't be able to clear part of
the frame it should.
for gcc/ChangeLog
PR middle-end/112917
* builtins.cc (expand_bultin_stack_address): Add
STACK_POINTER_OFFSET.
* doc/extend.texi (__builtin_stack_address): Adjust.
---
gcc/builtins.cc | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
gcc/doc/extend.texi | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/builtins.cc b/gcc/builtins.cc
index 7c2732ab79e6f..4c8c514fe8618 100644
--- a/gcc/builtins.cc
+++ b/gcc/builtins.cc
@@ -5443,8 +5443,38 @@ expand_builtin_frame_address (tree fndecl, tree exp)
static rtx
expand_builtin_stack_address ()
{
- return convert_to_mode (ptr_mode, copy_to_reg (stack_pointer_rtx),
- STACK_UNSIGNED);
+ rtx ret = convert_to_mode (ptr_mode, copy_to_reg (stack_pointer_rtx),
+ STACK_UNSIGNED);
+
+ /* Unbias the stack pointer, bringing it to the boundary between the
+ stack area claimed by the active function calling this builtin,
+ and stack ranges that could get clobbered if it called another
+ function. It should NOT encompass any stack red zone, that is
+ used in leaf functions.
+
+ On SPARC, the register save area is *not* considered active or
+ used by the active function, but rather as akin to the area in
+ which call-preserved registers are saved by callees. This
+ enables __strub_leave to clear what would otherwise overlap with
+ its own register save area.
+
+ If the address is computed too high or too low, parts of a stack
+ range that should be scrubbed may be left unscrubbed, scrubbing
+ may corrupt active portions of the stack frame, and stack ranges
+ may be doubly-scrubbed by caller and callee.
+
+ In order for it to be just right, the area delimited by
+ @code{__builtin_stack_address} and @code{__builtin_frame_address
+ (0)} should encompass caller's registers saved by the function,
+ local on-stack variables and @code{alloca} stack areas.
+ Accumulated outgoing on-stack arguments, preallocated as part of
+ a function's own prologue, are to be regarded as part of the
+ (caller) function's active area as well, whereas those pushed or
+ allocated temporarily for a call are regarded as part of the
+ callee's stack range, rather than the caller's. */
+ ret = plus_constant (ptr_mode, ret, STACK_POINTER_OFFSET);
+
+ return force_reg (ptr_mode, ret);
}
/* Expand a call to builtin function __builtin_strub_enter. */
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index b585e2d810230..5ac6a820e2a03 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -12706,7 +12706,28 @@ situations.
@enddefbuiltin
@deftypefn {Built-in Function} {void *} __builtin_stack_address ()
-This function returns the value of the stack pointer register.
+This function returns the stack pointer register, offset by
+@code{STACK_POINTER_OFFSET}.
+
+Conceptually, the returned address returned by this built-in function is
+the boundary between the stack area allocated for use by its caller, and
+the area that could be modified by a function call, that the caller
+could safely zero-out before or after (but not during) the call
+sequence.
+
+Arguments for a callee may be preallocated as part of the caller's stack
+frame, or allocated on a per-call basis, depending on the target, so
+they may be on either side of this boundary.
+
+Even if the stack pointer is biased, the result is not. The register
+save area on SPARC is regarded as modifiable by calls, rather than as
+allocated for use by the caller function, since it is never in use while
+the caller function itself is running.
+
+Red zones that only leaf functions could use are also regarded as
+modifiable by calls, rather than as allocated for use by the caller.
+This is only theoretical, since leaf functions do not issue calls, but a
+constant offset makes this built-in function more predictable.
@end deftypefn
@node Stack Scrubbing
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity
Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-19 23:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-14 20:17 [PATCH #1/2] strub: sparc: omit frame in strub_leave [PR112917] Alexandre Oliva
2023-12-14 21:28 ` [PATCH #2/2] strub: sparc64: unbias the stack address [PR112917] Alexandre Oliva
2023-12-15 7:26 ` Richard Biener
2023-12-19 23:51 ` Alexandre Oliva [this message]
2023-12-20 7:50 ` [PATCH #2v2/2] " Richard Biener
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=orplz13g5q.fsf_-_@lxoliva.fsfla.org \
--to=oliva@adacore.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de \
/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).