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
to reflect the new license.
We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.
Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.
llvm-svn: 351636
Summary:
This is the compiler-rt part.
The clang part is D54589.
This is a second commit, the original one was r351106,
which was mass-reverted in r351159 because 2 compiler-rt tests were failing.
Now, i have fundamentally changed the testing approach:
i malloc a few bytes, intentionally mis-align the pointer
(increment it by one), and check that. Also, i have decreased
the expected alignment. This hopefully should be enough to pacify
all the bots. If not, i guess i might just drop the two 'bad' tests.
Reviewers: filcab, vsk, #sanitizers, vitalybuka, rsmith, morehouse
Reviewed By: morehouse
Subscribers: rjmccall, krytarowski, rsmith, kcc, srhines, kubamracek, dberris, llvm-commits
Tags: #sanitizers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54590
llvm-svn: 351178
Vedant Kumar