[llvm-dev] Contributing a new sanitizer for pointer casts
Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 25 11:50:59 PDT 2017
I enjoyed reading through your EuroLLVM slides and OOPSLA paper. Detecting the creation of contract-violating pointers is an interesting idea, and your paper demonstrates that the checking can be comprehensive and effective.
However, I have concerns about the quality of diagnostics, the complexity of the driver, and about maintaining an out-of-tree runtime.
First, I'm concerned about libcrunch diagnostics which are morally correct, but which do not point out imminent correctness problems (for convenience I'll refer to these as false positives). You address this in the "Accommodating Sloppy C" section of your paper with the __like_a() runtime check. In my experience, users are reluctant to deploy the type of suppressions described here, and are more likely to abandon the sanitizer instead. What has your experience been with FPs? The results from your SPEC testing look promising, but I'm curious about any FP-related feedback you've gotten from other developers, or about the results of a libcrunch-enabled world build of FreeBSD. I've certainly seen code at Apple which would fail libcrunch's "is-a" checks, but which "works fine" according to the code owners. Would you be open to reducing the number of cases libcrunch is able to diagnose in order to reduce FP rates?
Second, do you see any way to simplify the wrappers required to invoke libcrunch? E.g is the runtime preload step necessary? Apart from the runtime shared object, can the other tools required to use libcrunch be consolidated into the clang binary?
Third, how do you plan on keeping the libcrunch integration into clang in-sync with the runtime, if the runtime is to live outside of the llvm tree? How will the feature be tested? Currently, the sanitizer runtimes ship with official LLVM downloads: what would the deployment story for libcrunch be (how would users get it)?
I don't mean any of this as a "do not proceed" message. These are simply some of the issues which I think are worth discussing early on.
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Kell via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Some of you might remember that at EuroLLVM last year in Barcelona,
> Chris Diamand and I gave a talk about Clang/libcrunch, a run-time
> checking system which can be thought of as another flavour of sanitizer.
> It checks pointer casts, using run-time type information. Roughly the
> check is that the pointer really points to an instance of the target
> type, though there are refinements to deal with various idioms violating
> that. <http://www.llvm.org/devmtg/2016-03/#presentation9>
> (I dropped a mention of this in the recent TBAA sanitizer thread, but
> consensus was that on balance it's a different enough tool to want
> My current research funding has some room for tech transfer activity, so
> I've been spending some time on improving the code, with a hope of
> eventually contributing it to LLVM.
> This mail is just to get a handle on two questions: how much interest is
> there in this, and what changes are most important in order to get
> something contributable?
> The system is a bit complex, so let me give you an overview of how it
> currently works. (If you want full technical details, there are a couple
> of research papers you could read -- see the bottom.)
> - Instrumentation: this adds checks on (most) pointer casts, and in a
> few other places. It also does a little source-level analysis to dump
> information about allocation sites. We have both (my original) CIL and
> (Chris's) Clang/LLVM implementations of this. The Clang version is not
> too pretty at present: it uses -include'd inline helper functions
> written in C and shared with the CIL implementation. It also requires a
> bit of a hack to propagate certain type info (in uses of "sizeof")
> onwards to LLVM so it can be used in a data-flow analysis.
> - Hints from the programmer: these are necessary to declare allocation
> functions, besides standard ones (malloc etc.). This is currently done
> with an environment variable (LIBALLOCS_ALLOC_FNS) though I've thought
> of adding a command-line option too. These declarations have effect at
> both compile and link time.
> - Compiler wrapper and helper tools: currently a mixture of shell,
> Python and C++ helpers building on a pile of my own libraries
> (libdwarfpp, dwarfidl, liballocstool), for DWARF analysis and
> postprocessing. Roughly, these are responsible for generating and
> linking the run-time type information itself.
> - Type information. This is autogenerated uniqued / COMDAT'd instances
> of a moderately complex (but compact) C struct for each distinct data
> type. The model of type info (but not the representation) is somewhat
> - Runtime. This is a preloadable shared library which does the
> dispatching of the checks. It also gets its hooks into various places to
> load type info as necessary, and to observe various kinds of allocation
> happening within the process. Again it builds on a pile of my other
> stuff (liballocs, which builds on trap-syscalls, mallochooks,
> Currently, my plan in a nutshell is to eliminate the C inline helpers in
> favour of fully IR-level instrumentation, and also eliminate the
> compiler wrapper in favour of a gold plugin (and maybe a bit of help in
> the clang driver). This should result in a contributable diff that adds
> a new sanitizer option (currently "-fsanitize=crunch", but name
> negotiable :-). Binaries built this way will also require the gold
> plugin and runtime (both out-of-tree) to do useful checking.
> I don't intend to port the runtime. Although in principle this could
> share code with the sanitizer runtimes, that's a lot of work and I don't
> have the resource to visit this right now... barring major rewrites, the
> runtime pretty much has to be GPL-licensed anyway, since it borrows code
> from glibc and Xen (for purposes I'm pretty sure are not covered by the
> sanitizer runtimes).
> So my questions for you are whether this contribution would be welcome,
> and in particular any red lines about how to do instrumentation, how to
> factor everything, and how to deal with the external dependencies. As I
> currently envisage things, the gold plugin must live out-of-tree since
> it will require my libraries to build; I don't believe equivalent
> library support exists within LLVM. This being out-of-tree seems not a
> huge loss given that the runtime also will be.
> Oh, and runtime support exists for x86-64/Linux only at the moment,
> though there is a bit of code for FreeBSD.
> For the interested, here are the research papers I mentioned.
> "Dynamically diagnosing run-time type errors in unsafe code" (OOPSLA '16)
> "Towards a dynamic object model within Unix processes" (Onward! '15)
> Code: <https://github.com/stephenrkell/liballocs>
> All thoughts appreciated... let me know if you see any obstacles to
> contribution, or if you're able to help, or just if you have questions.
> Much obliged,
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev