On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 3:46 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 17, 2024, at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:42 AM Richard Biener
> > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:26 PM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 15, 2024, at 4:31 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> All my questions for unshare_expr relate to a  LTO bug that I currently 
> >>>>> stuck with
> >>>>> when using .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE in bound sanitizer (only with -flto, 
> >>>>> without -flto, no issue):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [opc@qinzhao-aarch64-ol8 gcc]$ sh t
> >>>>> during IPA pass: modref
> >>>>> t.c:20:1: internal compiler error: tree code ‘ssa_name’ is not 
> >>>>> supported in LTO streams
> >>>>> 0x14c3993 lto_write_tree
> >>>>>       ../../latest-gcc-write/gcc/lto-streamer-out.cc:561
> >>>>> 0x14c3aeb lto_output_tree_1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And the value of the tree node that triggered the ICE is:
> >>>>> (gdb) call debug_tree(expr)
> >>>>> <ssa_name 0xfffff5761e60 type <error_mark 0xfffff56c0e58>
> >>>>>   nothrow
> >>>>>   def_stmt
> >>>>>   version:13 in-free-list>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there any good way to debug LTO bug?
> >>>>
> >>>> This happens usually when you have a VLA type and its type fields are not
> >>>> properly gimplified which usually happens because the frontend fails to
> >>>> insert a gimplification point for it (a DECL_EXPR).
> >>>
> >>> I found an old gcc bug
> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172
> >>> ICE: tree code ‘ssa_name’ is not supported in LTO streams since 
> >>> r11-3303-g6450f07388f9fe57
> >>>
> >>> Which is very similar to the bug I am having right now.
> >>>
> >>> After further study, I suspect that the issue I am having right now with 
> >>> the LTO streaming also
> >>> relate to “unshare_expr”, “save_expr”, and the combination of these two, 
> >>> I suspect that
> >>> the current gcc cannot handle the combination of these two correctly for 
> >>> my case.
> >>>
> >>> My testing case is:
> >>>
> >>> #include <stdlib.h>
> >>> void __attribute__((__noinline__)) setup_and_test_vla (int n1, int n2, 
> >>> int m)
> >>> {
> >>>   struct foo {
> >>>       int n;
> >>>       int p[][n2][n1] __attribute__((counted_by(n)));
> >>>   } *f;
> >>>
> >>>   f = (struct foo *) malloc (sizeof(struct foo) + m*sizeof(int[n2][n1]));
> >>>   f->n = m;
> >>>   f->p[m][n2][n1]=1;
> >>>   return;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> >>> {
> >>>  setup_and_test_vla (10, 11, 20);
> >>>  return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Failed with
> >>> my_gcc -Os -fsanitize=bounds -flto
> >>>
> >>> If changing either n1 or n2 to a constant, the testing passed.
> >>> If deleting -flto, the testing passed too.
> >>>
> >>> I double checked my code per the suggestions provided by you and Jakub in 
> >>> this
> >>> email thread, and I think the code should be fine.
> >>>
> >>> The code is following:
> >>>
> >>> =====
> >>> 504 /* Instrument array bounds for INDIRECT_REFs whose pointers are
> >>> 505    POINTER_PLUS_EXPRs of calls to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE. We create special
> >>> 506    builtins that gets expanded in the sanopt pass, and make an array
> >>> 507    dimension of it.  ARRAY is the pointer to the base of the array,
> >>> 508    which is a call to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, *OFFSET is the offset to the
> >>> 509    beginning of array.
> >>> 510    Return NULL_TREE if no instrumentation is emitted.  */
> >>> 511
> >>> 512 tree
> >>> 513 ubsan_instrument_bounds_indirect_ref (location_t loc, tree array, 
> >>> tree *offset)
> >>> 514 {
> >>> 515   if (!is_access_with_size_p (array))
> >>> 516     return NULL_TREE;
> >>> 517   tree bound = get_bound_from_access_with_size (array);
> >>> 518   /* The type of the call to .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE is a pointer type to
> >>> 519      the element of the array.  */
> >>> 520   tree element_size = TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (array)));
> >>> 521   gcc_assert (bound);
> >>> 522
> >>> 523   /* Given the offset, and the size of each element, the index can be
> >>> 524      computed as: offset/element_size.  */
> >>> 525   *offset = save_expr (*offset);
> >>> 526   tree index = fold_build2 (EXACT_DIV_EXPR,
> >>> 527                            sizetype, *offset,
> >>> 528                            unshare_expr (element_size));
> >>> 529   /* Create a "(T *) 0" tree node to describe the original array type.
> >>> 530      We get the original array type from the first argument of the 
> >>> call to
> >>> 531      .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF, COUNTED_BY_REF, 1, num_bytes, -1).
> >>> 532
> >>> 533      Originally, REF is a COMPONENT_REF with the original array type,
> >>> 534      it was converted to a pointer to an ADDR_EXPR, and the 
> >>> ADDR_EXPR's
> >>> 535      first operand is the original COMPONENT_REF.  */
> >>> 536   tree ref = CALL_EXPR_ARG (array, 0);
> >>> 537   tree array_type
> >>> 538     = unshare_expr (TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (TREE_OPERAND(ref, 0), 
> >>> 0)));
> >>> 539   tree zero_with_type = build_int_cst (build_pointer_type 
> >>> (array_type), 0);
> >>> 540   return build_call_expr_internal_loc (loc, IFN_UBSAN_BOUNDS,
> >>> 541                                        void_type_node, 3, 
> >>> zero_with_type,
> >>> 542                                        index, bound);
> >>> 543 }
> >>>
> >>> =====
> >>>
> >>> Inside gdb, the guilty IR failed in LTO streaming is from the above line 
> >>> 520:
> >>> TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (array))),
> >>>
> >>> When I use this tree node as an operand of the expression at line 526, I 
> >>> added
> >>> unshare_expr.
> >>>
> >>> However, I still see the guilty IR as in gdb:
> >>>
> >>>            unit-size <mult_expr 0xfffff5aabf90 type <integer_type 
> >>> 0xfffff57c0000 sizetype>
> >>>                side-effects
> >>>                arg:0 <mult_expr 0xfffff5aabf68 type <integer_type 
> >>> 0xfffff57c0000 sizetype>
> >>>
> >>>                    arg:0 <ssa_name 0xfffff5761e18 type <error_mark 
> >>> 0xfffff56c0e58>
> >>>                        nothrow
> >>>                        def_stmt
> >>>                        version:12 in-free-list>
> >>>                    arg:1 <ssa_name 0xfffff5761e60 type <error_mark 
> >>> 0xfffff56c0e58>
> >>>                        nothrow
> >>>                        def_stmt
> >>>                        version:13 in-free-list>>
> >>>                arg:1 <integer_cst 0xfffff56c10c8 constant 4>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have been stuck with this bug for quite some time.
> >>> Any help is helpful.
> >>
> >> The above hasn't been gimplified correctly, you'd instead see
> >> a D.1234 in there, not an expression with SSA names.  That happens
> >> when the frontend fails to emit a DECL_EXPR for a decl with this
> >> type.
> >
> > .. which then also results in missing unsharing of this expression
> > (so the SSA names leak in)
>
> Thanks a lot for the hints.
>
> One correction first, the LTO bug is not related to -fsanitize=bounds.  
> Deleting -fsanitize=bounds still can
> repeat the failure.
>
> After further debugging into the gimplification phase related with the 
> SAVE_EXPR, I finally locate the place
> where the unshareing of the expression is missing.   This is in the routine 
> “pointer_int_sum” of c-family/c-common.cc:
>
> 3330     {
> 3331       if (!complain && !COMPLETE_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (result_type)))
> 3332         return error_mark_node;
> 3333       size_exp = size_in_bytes_loc (loc, TREE_TYPE (result_type));
> 3334       /* Wrap the pointer expression in a SAVE_EXPR to make sure it
> 3335          is evaluated first when the size expression may depend
> 3336          on it for VM types.  */
> 3337       if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (size_exp)
> 3338           && TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (ptrop)
> 3339           && variably_modified_type_p (TREE_TYPE (ptrop), NULL))
> 3340         {
> 3341           ptrop = save_expr (ptrop);
> 3342           size_exp = build2 (COMPOUND_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (intop), ptrop, 
> size_exp);
> 3343         }
> 3344     }
>
> In the above, at line 3333, the tree node, TYPE_SIZE_UNIT 
> (TREE_TYPE(result_type)), is returned directly as
> the size_exp,
>
>  (gdb) call debug_tree(size_exp)
>  <mult_expr 0xfffff5a6f910
>     type <integer_type 0xfffff57c0000 sizetype public unsigned DI
>         size <integer_cst 0xfffff56c0e70 constant 64>
>         unit-size <integer_cst 0xfffff56c0e88 constant 8>
>         align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type 
> 0xfffff57c0000 precision:64 min <integer_cst 0xfffff56c0ea0 0> max 
> <integer_cst 0xfffff56d05e0 18446744073709551615>>
>     side-effects
>     arg:0 <mult_expr 0xfffff5a6f8e8 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c0000 
> sizetype>
>         side-effects
>         arg:0 <nop_expr 0xfffff56dc540 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c0000 
> sizetype>
>             side-effects
>             arg:0 <save_expr 0xfffff56dc4c0 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c05e8 
> int>
>                 side-effects arg:0 <parm_decl 0xfffff76b6f80 n1>>>
>         arg:1 <nop_expr 0xfffff56dc600 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c0000 
> sizetype>
>             side-effects
>             arg:0 <save_expr 0xfffff56dc580 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c05e8 
> int>
>                 side-effects arg:0 <parm_decl 0xfffff76b7000 n2>>>>
>     arg:1 <integer_cst 0xfffff56c10c8 type <integer_type 0xfffff57c0000 
> sizetype> constant 4>>
>
>
> Without unshare_expr to this size_exp, the above TYPE_SIZE_UNIT node 
> containing SAVE_EXPRs
> is gimpflified to expressions with SSA_NAME during gimplification.  (This is 
> unaccepted by LTO).
>
> Adding an unshare_expr (size_exp) resolved this problem.
>
> Although I still think that there might be potential issue with the 
> gimpflication of SAVE_EXPRs, I dare not
> to modify that part of the code.
>
> At this moment, I will add unshare_expr to the routine “pointer_int_sum” to 
> workaround this issue.

It's only a workaround mind you.  The bug is that the frontend fails
to emit a DECL_EXPR which would
trigger both unsharing and proper gimplification of the type size.

> Let me know if you have any comment and suggestion.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Qing
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Qing
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks a lot for the help.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Qing
>
>

Reply via email to