PAC/BTI-related codegen in the AArch64 backend is controlled by a set
of LLVM IR function attributes, added to the function by Clang, based
on command-line options and GCC-style function attributes. However,
functions, generated in the LLVM middle end (for example,
asan.module.ctor or __llvm_gcov_write_out) do not get any attributes
and the backend incorrectly does not do any PAC/BTI code generation.
This patch record the default state of PAC/BTI codegen in a set of
LLVM IR module-level attributes, based on command-line options:
* "sign-return-address", with non-zero value means generate code to
sign return addresses (PAC-RET), zero value means disable PAC-RET.
* "sign-return-address-all", with non-zero value means enable PAC-RET
for all functions, zero value means enable PAC-RET only for
functions, which spill LR.
* "sign-return-address-with-bkey", with non-zero value means use B-key
for signing, zero value mean use A-key.
This set of attributes are always added for AArch64 targets (as
opposed, for example, to interpreting a missing attribute as having a
value 0) in order to be able to check for conflicts when combining
module attributed during LTO.
Module-level attributes are overridden by function level attributes.
All the decision making about whether to not to generate PAC and/or
BTI code is factored out into AArch64FunctionInfo, there shouldn't be
any places left, other than AArch64FunctionInfo, which directly
examine PAC/BTI attributes, except AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp, which
is/will-be handled by a separate patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85649
Summary:
Inserting BTI instructions can push branch destinations out of range.
The branch relaxation pass itself cannot insert indirect branches since `TargetInstrInfo::insertIndirecrtBranch` is not implemented for AArch64 (guess +/-128 MB direct branch range is more than enough in practice).
Testing this is a bit tricky.
The original test case we have is 155kloc/6.1M. I've generated a test case using this program:
```
int main() {
std::cout << R"src(int test();
void g0(), g1(), g2(), g3(), g4(), e();
void f(int v) {
if ((test() & 2) == 0) {
switch (v) {
case 0:
g0();
case 1:
g1();
case 2:
g2();
case 3:
g3();
}
)src";
const int N = 8176;
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
std::cout << " void h" << i << "();\n";
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
std::cout << " h" << i << "();\n";
std::cout << R"src(
} else {
e();
}
}
)src";
}
```
which is still a bit too much to commit as a regression test, IMHO.
Reviewers: t.p.northover, ostannard
Reviewed By: ostannard
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D69118
Change-Id: Ide5c922bcde08ff4cf635da5e52365525a997a0a
Momchil Velikov