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
The pointer overflow check gives false negatives when dealing with
expressions in which an unsigned value is subtracted from a pointer.
This is summarized in PR33430 [1]: ubsan permits the result of the
subtraction to be greater than "p", but it should not.
To fix the issue, we should track whether or not the pointer expression
is a subtraction. If it is, and the indices are unsigned, we know to
expect "p - <unsigned> <= p".
I've tested this by running check-{llvm,clang} with a stage2
ubsan-enabled build. I've also added some tests to compiler-rt, which
are in D34122.
[1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33430
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D34121
llvm-svn: 307955
Adding an unsigned offset to a base pointer has undefined behavior if
the result of the expression would precede the base. An example from
@regehr:
int foo(char *p, unsigned offset) {
return p + offset >= p; // This may be optimized to '1'.
}
foo(p, -1); // UB.
This patch extends the pointer overflow check in ubsan to detect invalid
unsigned pointer index expressions. It changes the instrumentation to
only permit non-negative offsets in pointer index expressions when all
of the GEP indices are unsigned.
Testing: check-llvm, check-clang run on a stage2, ubsan-instrumented
build.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33910
llvm-svn: 305216
I'm not sure why, but on some bots, the order of two instructions are
swapped (as compared to the output on my machine). Loosen up the
CHECK-NEXT directives to deal with this.
Failing bot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/3097
llvm-svn: 304486
Check pointer arithmetic for overflow.
For some more background on this check, see:
https://wdtz.org/catching-pointer-overflow-bugs.htmlhttps://reviews.llvm.org/D20322
Patch by Will Dietz and John Regehr!
This version of the patch is different from the original in a few ways:
- It introduces the EmitCheckedInBoundsGEP utility which inserts
checks when the pointer overflow check is enabled.
- It does some constant-folding to reduce instrumentation overhead.
- It does not check some GEPs in CGExprCXX. I'm not sure that
inserting checks here, or in CGClass, would catch many bugs.
Possible future directions for this check:
- Introduce CGF.EmitCheckedStructGEP, to detect overflows when
accessing structures.
Testing: Apart from the added lit test, I ran check-llvm and check-clang
with a stage2, ubsan-instrumented clang. Will and John have also done
extensive testing on numerous open source projects.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33305
llvm-svn: 304459
Roman Lebedev