[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] RFC: Extend UBSan with qsort checks

Wed Jan 13 16:17:09 PST 2016

Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker
<https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h>
).

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote:

> On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>
>> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>>>>
>>>> FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h
>>>>>
>>>>> Search for "check sort predicate for strict weak ordering"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nice, although this wouldn't catch violations of transitivity (which is
>>>> probably the most important type of bug).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought it would...
>>>
>>
>> But debug operator() only knows about 2 inputs whereas for transitivity
>> you'll need to consider at least 3.
>>
>> Can you give a test?
>>>
>>
> Here's an example of transitivity violation in GCC:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68988
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alexey Samsonov via llvm-dev <
>>>>
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (+correct cfe-dev list)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Yuri,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yury Gribov via llvm-dev <
>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer currently does not check for undefined
>>>>>>>> behaviors which result from improper usage of standard library
>>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not really an undefined behavior per se: you just violate the
>>>>>>> contract provided by library functions (at least I haven't found a
>>>>>>> clause
>>>>>>> in C++ standard
>>>>>>> that specifies that the behavior of smth. like std::sort() with
>>>>>>> invalid
>>>>>>> operator< is invalid). The actual behavior of these functions is
>>>>>>> determined by library authors, and can be anything from UB to
>>>>>>> unspecified
>>>>>>> result, to nicely formatted error report (if you're using a debug
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>> of system library):
>>>>>>> I think I actually encountered all these cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, the benefit of checking the sorting routines is clear: I'm
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> surprised you were able to catch numerous bugs with your tool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UBSan currently doesn't have interceptors, and all of its checks
>>>>>>> [1] are
>>>>>>> designed to work without runtime library support, so that it can be
>>>>>>> used as
>>>>>>> a mitigation
>>>>>>> tool (with -fsanitize-trap=undefined). It's challenging to add UBSan
>>>>>>> interceptors at this point: this would limit the tool portability (at
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> portability of some functionality),
>>>>>>> and complicate interoperation of UBSan with another tools. There
>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>> opportunity to, say, add qsort() interceptor to ASan/TSan/MSan, and
>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> arguments there.
>>>>>>> This functionality can be controlled by a runtime flag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you need compiler instrumentation? Do you want to
>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>> inject hooks to SortChecker into std::sort() functions, so that you
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> need to annotate C++ standard library code?
>>>>>>> We submitted some annotations to libc++ code (e.g. to report
>>>>>>> containter
>>>>>>> overflow bugs in sanitizers).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] -fsanitize=vptr is an only notable exception
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One notorious instance of such errors is invalid usage of qsort or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bsearch routines (or std::sort and friends in case of C++):
>>>>>>>> * using comparison function that violates ordering axioms
>>>>>>>> (reflexivity,
>>>>>>>> symmetry, transitivity)
>>>>>>>> * returning unstable results from comparison function
>>>>>>>> * passing unsorted array to bsearch
>>>>>>>> * etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Errors like this will usually result in slightly invalid output (not
>>>>>>>> fully sorted arrays, rare failed bsearches, etc.) but may as well
>>>>>>>> cause
>>>>>>>> aborts on some systems (
>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3959
>>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've recently developed a simple proof-of-concept tool SortChecker (
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/yugr/sortcheck) which intercepts calls to
>>>>>>>> qsort and
>>>>>>>> friends (via LD_PRELOAD) and performs various sanity checks before
>>>>>>>> passing
>>>>>>>> control to libc e.g.
>>>>>>>> * sign(cmp(a, b)) == - sign(cmp(b, a)) for all array elements
>>>>>>>> * etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Results were quite inspiring: I've found several errors in popular
>>>>>>>> open-source packages (GCC, Harfbuzz, dpkg, libXt, etc.). I'm also
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>> sure most C++ developers have failed to write correct comparison
>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>> at least once.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could SortChecker functionality be considered for integration into
>>>>>>>> UBSan? Extending SortChecker to C++ land would require
>>>>>>>> significant work
>>>>>>>> which has already been done in sanitizers (compiler instrumentation,
>>>>>>>> portable parallel code, etc.). On the other hand, ability to
>>>>>>>> detect new
>>>>>>>> classes of bugs should benefit UBSan and community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Y
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>>>>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alexey Samsonov
>>>>>> vonosmas at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160113/8c050509/attachment.html>