llvm-project/clang/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.rst

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

366 lines
16 KiB
ReStructuredText
Raw Normal View History

==========================
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer
==========================
.. contents::
:local:
Introduction
============
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer (UBSan) is a fast undefined behavior detector.
UBSan modifies the program at compile-time to catch various kinds of undefined
behavior during program execution, for example:
* Using misaligned or null pointer
* Signed integer overflow
* Conversion to, from, or between floating-point types which would
overflow the destination
See the full list of available :ref:`checks <ubsan-checks>` below.
UBSan has an optional run-time library which provides better error reporting.
The checks have small runtime cost and no impact on address space layout or ABI.
How to build
============
Build LLVM/Clang with `CMake <https://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html>`_.
Usage
=====
Use ``clang++`` to compile and link your program with ``-fsanitize=undefined``
flag. Make sure to use ``clang++`` (not ``ld``) as a linker, so that your
executable is linked with proper UBSan runtime libraries. You can use ``clang``
instead of ``clang++`` if you're compiling/linking C code.
.. code-block:: console
% cat test.cc
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int k = 0x7fffffff;
k += argc;
return 0;
}
% clang++ -fsanitize=undefined test.cc
% ./a.out
test.cc:3:5: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 2147483647 + 1 cannot be represented in type 'int'
You can enable only a subset of :ref:`checks <ubsan-checks>` offered by UBSan,
and define the desired behavior for each kind of check:
* ``-fsanitize=...``: print a verbose error report and continue execution (default);
* ``-fno-sanitize-recover=...``: print a verbose error report and exit the program;
* ``-fsanitize-trap=...``: execute a trap instruction (doesn't require UBSan run-time support).
Note that the ``trap`` / ``recover`` options do not enable the corresponding
sanitizer, and in general need to be accompanied by a suitable ``-fsanitize=``
flag.
For example if you compile/link your program as:
.. code-block:: console
% clang++ -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow,null,alignment -fno-sanitize-recover=null -fsanitize-trap=alignment
the program will continue execution after signed integer overflows, exit after
the first invalid use of a null pointer, and trap after the first use of misaligned
pointer.
.. _ubsan-checks:
Available checks
================
Available checks are:
- ``-fsanitize=alignment``: Use of a misaligned pointer or creation
of a misaligned reference. Also sanitizes assume_aligned-like attributes.
- ``-fsanitize=bool``: Load of a ``bool`` value which is neither
``true`` nor ``false``.
- ``-fsanitize=builtin``: Passing invalid values to compiler builtins.
- ``-fsanitize=bounds``: Out of bounds array indexing, in cases
where the array bound can be statically determined. The check includes
``-fsanitize=array-bounds`` and ``-fsanitize=local-bounds``. Note that
``-fsanitize=local-bounds`` is not included in ``-fsanitize=undefined``.
- ``-fsanitize=enum``: Load of a value of an enumerated type which
is not in the range of representable values for that enumerated
type.
- ``-fsanitize=float-cast-overflow``: Conversion to, from, or
between floating-point types which would overflow the
destination. Because the range of representable values for all
floating-point types supported by Clang is [-inf, +inf], the only
cases detected are conversions from floating point to integer types.
- ``-fsanitize=float-divide-by-zero``: Floating point division by
zero. This is undefined per the C and C++ standards, but is defined
by Clang (and by ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559 / IEEE 754) as producing either an
infinity or NaN value, so is not included in ``-fsanitize=undefined``.
- ``-fsanitize=function``: Indirect call of a function through a
function pointer of the wrong type (Darwin/Linux, C++ and x86/x86_64
only).
- ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation``,
``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-integer-truncation``: Implicit conversion from
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
integer of larger bit width to smaller bit width, if that results in data
loss. That is, if the demoted value, after casting back to the original
width, is not equal to the original value before the downcast.
The ``-fsanitize=implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation`` handles conversions
between two ``unsigned`` types, while
``-fsanitize=implicit-signed-integer-truncation`` handles the rest of the
conversions - when either one, or both of the types are signed.
Issues caught by these sanitizers are not undefined behavior,
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
but are often unintentional.
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
- ``-fsanitize=implicit-integer-sign-change``: Implicit conversion between
integer types, if that changes the sign of the value. That is, if the the
original value was negative and the new value is positive (or zero),
or the original value was positive, and the new value is negative.
Issues caught by this sanitizer are not undefined behavior,
but are often unintentional.
- ``-fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero``: Integer division by zero.
- ``-fsanitize=nonnull-attribute``: Passing null pointer as a function
parameter which is declared to never be null.
- ``-fsanitize=null``: Use of a null pointer or creation of a null
reference.
- ``-fsanitize=nullability-arg``: Passing null as a function parameter
which is annotated with ``_Nonnull``.
- ``-fsanitize=nullability-assign``: Assigning null to an lvalue which
is annotated with ``_Nonnull``.
- ``-fsanitize=nullability-return``: Returning null from a function with
a return type annotated with ``_Nonnull``.
- ``-fsanitize=objc-cast``: Invalid implicit cast of an ObjC object pointer
to an incompatible type. This is often unintentional, but is not undefined
behavior, therefore the check is not a part of the ``undefined`` group.
Currently only supported on Darwin.
- ``-fsanitize=object-size``: An attempt to potentially use bytes which
the optimizer can determine are not part of the object being accessed.
This will also detect some types of undefined behavior that may not
directly access memory, but are provably incorrect given the size of
the objects involved, such as invalid downcasts and calling methods on
invalid pointers. These checks are made in terms of
``__builtin_object_size``, and consequently may be able to detect more
problems at higher optimization levels.
- ``-fsanitize=pointer-overflow``: Performing pointer arithmetic which
[UBSan][clang][compiler-rt] Applying non-zero offset to nullptr is undefined behaviour Summary: Quote from http://eel.is/c++draft/expr.add#4: ``` 4 When an expression J that has integral type is added to or subtracted from an expression P of pointer type, the result has the type of P. (4.1) If P evaluates to a null pointer value and J evaluates to 0, the result is a null pointer value. (4.2) Otherwise, if P points to an array element i of an array object x with n elements ([dcl.array]), the expressions P + J and J + P (where J has the value j) point to the (possibly-hypothetical) array element i+j of x if 0≤i+j≤n and the expression P - J points to the (possibly-hypothetical) array element i−j of x if 0≤i−j≤n. (4.3) Otherwise, the behavior is undefined. ``` Therefore, as per the standard, applying non-zero offset to `nullptr` (or making non-`nullptr` a `nullptr`, by subtracting pointer's integral value from the pointer itself) is undefined behavior. (*if* `nullptr` is not defined, i.e. e.g. `-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks` was *not* specified.) To make things more fun, in C (6.5.6p8), applying *any* offset to null pointer is undefined, although Clang front-end pessimizes the code by not lowering that info, so this UB is "harmless". Since rL369789 (D66608 `[InstCombine] icmp eq/ne (gep inbounds P, Idx..), null -> icmp eq/ne P, null`) LLVM middle-end uses those guarantees for transformations. If the source contains such UB's, said code may now be miscompiled. Such miscompilations were already observed: * https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190826/687838.html * https://github.com/google/filament/pull/1566 Surprisingly, UBSan does not catch those issues ... until now. This diff teaches UBSan about these UB's. `getelementpointer inbounds` is a pretty frequent instruction, so this does have a measurable impact on performance; I've addressed most of the obvious missing folds (and thus decreased the performance impact by ~5%), and then re-performed some performance measurements using my [[ https://github.com/darktable-org/rawspeed | RawSpeed ]] benchmark: (all measurements done with LLVM ToT, the sanitizer never fired.) * no sanitization vs. existing check: average `+21.62%` slowdown * existing check vs. check after this patch: average `22.04%` slowdown * no sanitization vs. this patch: average `48.42%` slowdown Reviewers: vsk, filcab, rsmith, aaron.ballman, vitalybuka, rjmccall, #sanitizers Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: kristof.beyls, nickdesaulniers, nikic, ychen, dtzWill, xbolva00, dberris, arphaman, rupprecht, reames, regehr, llvm-commits, cfe-commits Tags: #clang, #sanitizers, #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122 llvm-svn: 374293
2019-10-10 17:25:02 +08:00
overflows, or where either the old or new pointer value is a null pointer
(or in C, when they both are).
- ``-fsanitize=return``: In C++, reaching the end of a
value-returning function without returning a value.
- ``-fsanitize=returns-nonnull-attribute``: Returning null pointer
from a function which is declared to never return null.
- ``-fsanitize=shift``: Shift operators where the amount shifted is
greater or equal to the promoted bit-width of the left hand side
or less than zero, or where the left hand side is negative. For a
signed left shift, also checks for signed overflow in C, and for
unsigned overflow in C++. You can use ``-fsanitize=shift-base`` or
``-fsanitize=shift-exponent`` to check only left-hand side or
right-hand side of shift operation, respectively.
- ``-fsanitize=unsigned-shift-base``: check that an unsigned left-hand side of
a left shift operation doesn't overflow.
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
- ``-fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow``: Signed integer overflow, where the
result of a signed integer computation cannot be represented in its type.
This includes all the checks covered by ``-ftrapv``, as well as checks for
signed division overflow (``INT_MIN/-1``), but not checks for
lossy implicit conversions performed before the computation
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
(see ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion``). Both of these two issues are
handled by ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion`` group of checks.
- ``-fsanitize=unreachable``: If control flow reaches an unreachable
program point.
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
- ``-fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow``: Unsigned integer overflow, where
the result of an unsigned integer computation cannot be represented in its
type. Unlike signed integer overflow, this is not undefined behavior, but
it is often unintentional. This sanitizer does not check for lossy implicit
conversions performed before such a computation
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
(see ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion``).
- ``-fsanitize=vla-bound``: A variable-length array whose bound
does not evaluate to a positive value.
- ``-fsanitize=vptr``: Use of an object whose vptr indicates that it is of
the wrong dynamic type, or that its lifetime has not begun or has ended.
Incompatible with ``-fno-rtti``. Link must be performed by ``clang++``, not
``clang``, to make sure C++-specific parts of the runtime library and C++
standard libraries are present.
You can also use the following check groups:
- ``-fsanitize=undefined``: All of the checks listed above other than
``float-divide-by-zero``, ``unsigned-integer-overflow``,
``implicit-conversion``, ``local-bounds`` and the ``nullability-*`` group
of checks.
- ``-fsanitize=undefined-trap``: Deprecated alias of
``-fsanitize=undefined``.
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
- ``-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation``: Catches lossy integral
conversions. Enables ``implicit-signed-integer-truncation`` and
``implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation``.
- ``-fsanitize=implicit-integer-arithmetic-value-change``: Catches implicit
conversions that change the arithmetic value of the integer. Enables
``implicit-signed-integer-truncation`` and ``implicit-integer-sign-change``.
- ``-fsanitize=implicit-conversion``: Checks for suspicious
behavior of implicit conversions. Enables
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
``implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation``,
``implicit-signed-integer-truncation``, and
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
``implicit-integer-sign-change``.
- ``-fsanitize=integer``: Checks for undefined or suspicious integer
behavior (e.g. unsigned integer overflow).
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` unsigned char store = 0; bool consume(unsigned int val); void test(unsigned long val) { if (consume(val)) { // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug. // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768), // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`. // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended. store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int. } // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // You can either make the conversion explicit (void)consume((unsigned int)val); // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost. (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wconversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does **not** warn. So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down. The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value. The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this `ImplicitCastExpr` AST node is **actually** an implicit conversion, //or// part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer `ExplicitCastExpr` with some `ImplicitCastExpr`'s as **direct** children. https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ Nowadays, we can just use the new `part_of_explicit_cast` flag, which is set on all the implicitly-added `ImplicitCastExpr`'s of an `ExplicitCastExpr`. So if that flag is **not** set, then it is an actual implicit conversion. As you may have noted, this isn't just named `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about. Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer, when again, that conversion is lossy. One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D48959. Fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Partially fixes [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions) Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958 llvm-svn: 338288
2018-07-31 02:58:30 +08:00
Enables ``signed-integer-overflow``, ``unsigned-integer-overflow``,
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
``shift``, ``integer-divide-by-zero``,
``implicit-unsigned-integer-truncation``,
``implicit-signed-integer-truncation``, and
[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer sign change - clang part This is the second half of Implicit Integer Conversion Sanitizer. It completes the first half, and finally makes the sanitizer fully functional! Only the bitfield handling is missing. Summary: C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly. The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible, and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price: ``` void consume(unsigned int val); void test(int val) { consume(val); // The 'val' is `signed int`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`. // If val is negative, then consume() will be operating on a large // unsigned value, and you may or may not have a bug. // But yes, sometimes this is intentional. // Making the conversion explicit silences the sanitizer. consume((unsigned int)val); } ``` Yes, there is a `-Wsign-conversion`` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an actual issues), and second, likely there are cases where it does **not** warn. The actual detection is pretty easy. We just need to check each of the values whether it is negative, and equality-compare the results of those comparisons. The unsigned value is obviously non-negative. Zero is non-negative too. https://godbolt.org/g/w93oj2 We do not have to emit the check *always*, there are obvious situations where we can avoid emitting it, since it would **always** get optimized-out. But i do think the tautological IR (`icmp ult %x, 0`, which is always false) should be emitted, and the middle-end should cleanup it. This sanitizer is in the `-fsanitize=implicit-conversion` group, and is a logical continuation of D48958 `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. As for the ordering, i'we opted to emit the check **after** `-fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation`. At least on these simple 16 test cases, this results in 1 of the 12 emitted checks being optimized away, as compared to 0 checks being optimized away if the order is reversed. This is a clang part. The compiler-rt part is D50251. Finishes fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21530 | PR21530 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37552 | PR37552 ]], [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35409 | PR35409 ]]. Finishes partially fixing [[ https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9821 | PR9821 ]]. Finishes fixing https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. Only the bitfield handling is missing. Reviewers: vsk, rsmith, rjmccall, #sanitizers, erichkeane Reviewed By: rsmith Subscribers: chandlerc, filcab, cfe-commits, regehr Tags: #sanitizers, #clang Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50250 llvm-svn: 345660
2018-10-31 05:58:56 +08:00
``implicit-integer-sign-change``.
- ``-fsanitize=nullability``: Enables ``nullability-arg``,
``nullability-assign``, and ``nullability-return``. While violating
nullability does not have undefined behavior, it is often unintentional,
so UBSan offers to catch it.
Volatile
--------
The ``null``, ``alignment``, ``object-size``, ``local-bounds``, and ``vptr`` checks do not apply
to pointers to types with the ``volatile`` qualifier.
Minimal Runtime
===============
There is a minimal UBSan runtime available suitable for use in production
environments. This runtime has a small attack surface. It only provides very
basic issue logging and deduplication, and does not support
``-fsanitize=function`` and ``-fsanitize=vptr`` checking.
To use the minimal runtime, add ``-fsanitize-minimal-runtime`` to the clang
command line options. For example, if you're used to compiling with
``-fsanitize=undefined``, you could enable the minimal runtime with
``-fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-minimal-runtime``.
Stack traces and report symbolization
=====================================
If you want UBSan to print symbolized stack trace for each error report, you
will need to:
#. Compile with ``-g`` and ``-fno-omit-frame-pointer`` to get proper debug
information in your binary.
#. Run your program with environment variable
``UBSAN_OPTIONS=print_stacktrace=1``.
#. Make sure ``llvm-symbolizer`` binary is in ``PATH``.
Logging
=======
The default log file for diagnostics is "stderr". To log diagnostics to another
file, you can set ``UBSAN_OPTIONS=log_path=...``.
Silencing Unsigned Integer Overflow
===================================
To silence reports from unsigned integer overflow, you can set
``UBSAN_OPTIONS=silence_unsigned_overflow=1``. This feature, combined with
``-fsanitize-recover=unsigned-integer-overflow``, is particularly useful for
providing fuzzing signal without blowing up logs.
Issue Suppression
=================
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer is not expected to produce false positives.
If you see one, look again; most likely it is a true positive!
Disabling Instrumentation with ``__attribute__((no_sanitize("undefined")))``
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You disable UBSan checks for particular functions with
``__attribute__((no_sanitize("undefined")))``. You can use all values of
``-fsanitize=`` flag in this attribute, e.g. if your function deliberately
contains possible signed integer overflow, you can use
``__attribute__((no_sanitize("signed-integer-overflow")))``.
This attribute may not be
supported by other compilers, so consider using it together with
``#if defined(__clang__)``.
Suppressing Errors in Recompiled Code (Blacklist)
-------------------------------------------------
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer supports ``src`` and ``fun`` entity types in
:doc:`SanitizerSpecialCaseList`, that can be used to suppress error reports
in the specified source files or functions.
Runtime suppressions
--------------------
Sometimes you can suppress UBSan error reports for specific files, functions,
or libraries without recompiling the code. You need to pass a path to
suppression file in a ``UBSAN_OPTIONS`` environment variable.
.. code-block:: bash
UBSAN_OPTIONS=suppressions=MyUBSan.supp
You need to specify a :ref:`check <ubsan-checks>` you are suppressing and the
bug location. For example:
.. code-block:: bash
signed-integer-overflow:file-with-known-overflow.cpp
alignment:function_doing_unaligned_access
vptr:shared_object_with_vptr_failures.so
There are several limitations:
* Sometimes your binary must have enough debug info and/or symbol table, so
that the runtime could figure out source file or function name to match
against the suppression.
* It is only possible to suppress recoverable checks. For the example above,
you can additionally pass
``-fsanitize-recover=signed-integer-overflow,alignment,vptr``, although
most of UBSan checks are recoverable by default.
* Check groups (like ``undefined``) can't be used in suppressions file, only
fine-grained checks are supported.
Supported Platforms
===================
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer is supported on the following operating systems:
* Android
* Linux
* NetBSD
* FreeBSD
* OpenBSD
* macOS
* Windows
The runtime library is relatively portable and platform independent. If the OS
you need is not listed above, UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer may already work for
it, or could be made to work with a minor porting effort.
Current Status
==============
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer is available on selected platforms starting from LLVM
3.3. The test suite is integrated into the CMake build and can be run with
``check-ubsan`` command.
Additional Configuration
========================
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer adds static check data for each check unless it is
in trap mode. This check data includes the full file name. The option
``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=N`` can be used to trim this
information. If ``N`` is positive, file information emitted by
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer will drop the first ``N`` components from the file
path. If ``N`` is negative, the last ``N`` components will be kept.
Example
-------
For a file called ``/code/library/file.cpp``, here is what would be emitted:
* Default (No flag, or ``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=0``): ``/code/library/file.cpp``
* ``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=1``: ``code/library/file.cpp``
* ``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=2``: ``library/file.cpp``
* ``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=-1``: ``file.cpp``
* ``-fsanitize-undefined-strip-path-components=-2``: ``library/file.cpp``
More Information
================
* From LLVM project blog:
`What Every C Programmer Should Know About Undefined Behavior
<http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know.html>`_
* From John Regehr's *Embedded in Academia* blog:
`A Guide to Undefined Behavior in C and C++
<https://blog.regehr.org/archives/213>`_