This new patch fixes a few bugs that exposed in last submit. It also improves
the test cases.
--Original Commit Message--
This patch implements a minimum spanning tree (MST) based instrumentation for
PGO. The use of MST guarantees minimum number of CFG edges getting
instrumented. An addition optimization is to instrument the less executed
edges to further reduce the instrumentation overhead. The patch contains both the
instrumentation and the use of the profile to set the branch weights.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12781
llvm-svn: 255132
This patch implements a minimum spanning tree (MST) based instrumentation for
PGO. The use of MST guarantees minimum number of CFG edges getting
instrumented. An addition optimization is to instrument the less executed
edges to further reduce the instrumentation overhead. The patch contains both the
instrumentation and the use of the profile to set the branch weights.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12781
llvm-svn: 254021
Summary: Similar to the change we applied to ASan. The same test case works.
Reviewers: samsonov
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D11961
llvm-svn: 245067
This patch adds the safe stack instrumentation pass to LLVM, which separates
the program stack into a safe stack, which stores return addresses, register
spills, and local variables that are statically verified to be accessed
in a safe way, and the unsafe stack, which stores everything else. Such
separation makes it much harder for an attacker to corrupt objects on the
safe stack, including function pointers stored in spilled registers and
return addresses. You can find more information about the safe stack, as
well as other parts of or control-flow hijack protection technique in our
OSDI paper on code-pointer integrity (http://dslab.epfl.ch/pubs/cpi.pdf)
and our project website (http://levee.epfl.ch).
The overhead of our implementation of the safe stack is very close to zero
(0.01% on the Phoronix benchmarks). This is lower than the overhead of
stack cookies, which are supported by LLVM and are commonly used today,
yet the security guarantees of the safe stack are strictly stronger than
stack cookies. In some cases, the safe stack improves performance due to
better cache locality.
Our current implementation of the safe stack is stable and robust, we
used it to recompile multiple projects on Linux including Chromium, and
we also recompiled the entire FreeBSD user-space system and more than 100
packages. We ran unit tests on the FreeBSD system and many of the packages
and observed no errors caused by the safe stack. The safe stack is also fully
binary compatible with non-instrumented code and can be applied to parts of
a program selectively.
This patch is our implementation of the safe stack on top of LLVM. The
patches make the following changes:
- Add the safestack function attribute, similar to the ssp, sspstrong and
sspreq attributes.
- Add the SafeStack instrumentation pass that applies the safe stack to all
functions that have the safestack attribute. This pass moves all unsafe local
variables to the unsafe stack with a separate stack pointer, whereas all
safe variables remain on the regular stack that is managed by LLVM as usual.
- Invoke the pass as the last stage before code generation (at the same time
the existing cookie-based stack protector pass is invoked).
- Add unit tests for the safe stack.
Original patch by Volodymyr Kuznetsov and others at the Dependable Systems
Lab at EPFL; updates and upstreaming by myself.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6094
llvm-svn: 239761
Introduce the ``llvm.instrprof_increment`` intrinsic and the
``-instrprof`` pass. These provide the infrastructure for writing
counters for profiling, as in clang's ``-fprofile-instr-generate``.
The implementation of the instrprof pass is ported directly out of the
CodeGenPGO classes in clang, and with the followup in clang that rips
that code out to use these new intrinsics this ends up being NFC.
Doing the instrumentation this way opens some doors in terms of
improving the counter performance. For example, this will make it
simple to experiment with alternate lowering strategies, and allows us
to try handling profiling specially in some optimizations if we want
to.
Finally, this drastically simplifies the frontend and puts all of the
lowering logic in one place.
llvm-svn: 223672
Summary:
This change moves asan-coverage instrumentation
into a separate Module pass.
The other part of the change in clang introduces a new flag
-fsanitize-coverage=N.
Another small patch will update tests in compiler-rt.
With this patch no functionality change is expected except for the flag name.
The following changes will make the coverage instrumentation work with tsan/msan
Test Plan: Run regression tests, chromium.
Reviewers: nlewycky, samsonov
Reviewed By: nlewycky, samsonov
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6152
llvm-svn: 221718
subsequent changes are easier to review. About to fix some layering
issues, and wanted to separate out the necessary churn.
Also comment and sink the include of "Windows.h" in three .inc files to
match the usage in Memory.inc.
llvm-svn: 198685
infrastructure.
This was essentially work toward PGO based on a design that had several
flaws, partially dating from a time when LLVM had a different
architecture, and with an effort to modernize it abandoned without being
completed. Since then, it has bitrotted for several years further. The
result is nearly unusable, and isn't helping any of the modern PGO
efforts. Instead, it is getting in the way, adding confusion about PGO
in LLVM and distracting everyone with maintenance on essentially dead
code. Removing it paves the way for modern efforts around PGO.
Among other effects, this removes the last of the runtime libraries from
LLVM. Those are being developed in the separate 'compiler-rt' project
now, with somewhat different licensing specifically more approriate for
runtimes.
llvm-svn: 191835
DataFlowSanitizer is a generalised dynamic data flow analysis.
Unlike other Sanitizer tools, this tool is not designed to detect a
specific class of bugs on its own. Instead, it provides a generic
dynamic data flow analysis framework to be used by clients to help
detect application-specific issues within their own code.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D965
llvm-svn: 187923
the things, and renames it to CBindingWrapping.h. I also moved
CBindingWrapping.h into Support/.
This new file just contains the macros for defining different wrap/unwrap
methods.
The calls to those macros, as well as any custom wrap/unwrap definitions
(like for array of Values for example), are put into corresponding C++
headers.
Doing this required some #include surgery, since some .cpp files relied
on the fact that including Wrap.h implicitly caused the inclusion of a
bunch of other things.
This also now means that the C++ headers will include their corresponding
C API headers; for example Value.h must include llvm-c/Core.h. I think
this is harmless, since the C API headers contain just external function
declarations and some C types, so I don't believe there should be any
nasty dependency issues here.
llvm-svn: 180881
Use debug info in the IR to find the directory/file:line:col. Each time that location changes, bump a counter.
Unlike the existing profiling system, we don't try to look at argv[], and thusly don't require main() to be present in the IR. This matches GCC's technique where you specify the profiling flag when producing each .o file.
The runtime library is minimal, currently just calling printf at program shutdown time. The API is designed to make it possible to emit GCOV data later on.
llvm-svn: 129340
Modified patch by Adam Preuss.
This builds on the existing framework for block tracing, edge profiling and optimal edge profiling.
See -help-hidden for new flags.
For documentation, see the technical report "Implementation of Path Profiling..." in llvm.org/pubs.
llvm-svn: 124515
Benjamin Kramer