<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Arthur,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think that the problem is only visible with the full restrict patches where we sometimes remove an intrinsic<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">after those calls were tracked.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am not aware of other places, after the tracking of those calls, where intrinsics might be removed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I can prepare a [nfc] fix for this.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jeroen Dobbelaere<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Arthur Eubanks <aeubanks@google.com> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 9, 2021 17:40<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeroen Dobbelaere <dobbel@synopsys.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org; chandlerc@google.com; Alina Sbirlea <asbirlea@google.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [llvm-dev] InlineFunction.cpp: IFI.InlinedCallSites and intrinsics<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don't see any reason to add intrinsics into `IFI.InlinedCallSites`. Seems like all users expect it to only contain actual function calls.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is the use after free specific to your patches, or is it observable currently in ToT LLVM?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:32 AM Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev <<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I have been investigating a 'use after free' in the inliner. (This is with the full restrict patches)<br>
<br>
The problem is related to an intrinsic call that is removed, but later on is used anyway because<br>
the instruction was being tracked in the 'IFI.InlinedCallSites':<br>
<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1db2551cc1a356a67c0967f424d6158e2ea127e3/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp*L2448__;Iw!!A4F2R9G_pg!P4AfwVV0qdm2EvNlGfQ_aS5TTlh5osJgXFIt0sZKWtNOdyZ-FR28t5FQCR0SRZTzOnhofPef$" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1db2551cc1a356a67c0967f424d6158e2ea127e3/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp#L2448</a><br>
<br>
As similar code here:<br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1db2551cc1a356a67c0967f424d6158e2ea127e3/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp*L1350__;Iw!!A4F2R9G_pg!P4AfwVV0qdm2EvNlGfQ_aS5TTlh5osJgXFIt0sZKWtNOdyZ-FR28t5FQCR0SRZTzOlILHK40$" target="_blank">https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1db2551cc1a356a67c0967f424d6158e2ea127e3/llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp#L1350</a><br>
<br>
avoids updating 'IFI.InlinedCalls' for intrinsics, I am wondering if the same logic should be added to the former.<br>
Or is there a good reason that intrinsics must be included in 'IFI.InlinedCallSites' ?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Jeroen Dobbelaere<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev__;!!A4F2R9G_pg!P4AfwVV0qdm2EvNlGfQ_aS5TTlh5osJgXFIt0sZKWtNOdyZ-FR28t5FQCR0SRZTzOvJjA3up$" target="_blank">https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>