[PATCH] Add an intrinsic for creating jump-instruction table entries

[Tom Roeder]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This patch adds an intrinsic for creating jump-instruction table entries
> of the form:
>
>   .type f_JT, at function
>   f_JT:
>     jmp f at PLT
>
> It adds an intrinsic void @llvm.jump.instr.table.entry(i8*) and X86
> backend support for this intrinsic. The intrinsic takes a bitcast function
> pointer as input and generates the jump-instruction table entry. Note that
> while jump tables are supported in CodeGen, they are a different kind of
> jump table, AFAICT: one that uses indices rather than one that contains
> jump instructions.
>
> This intrinsic would allow me to remove the inline assembly that I
> currently use for control-flow integrity (CFI), as discussed on llvmdev;
> these intrinsics would be generated by the CFI pass along with declarations
> of the jump-table functions (required because the CFI pass replaces
> address-taken functions with the address of the _JT function).
>
> I couldn't find any way to do this above the arch-specific Targets, given
> that it violates the IR branch semantics of jumping to a block; and even
> so, I had to add a check to one of the X86 optimizations that was assuming
> that all JMP_4 instructions had a MachineBasicBlock as an operand.
>
> The patch also adds another kind of label, JUMP_FUNCTION_LABEL, which
> produces a label that looks like the start of a function (with MCSA_Global
> and sometimes MCSA_ELF_TypeFunction). So, the intrinsic lowers to a
> JUMP_FUNCTION_LABEL and a JMP_4.
>
> I was able to do much of the work in the target-independent portions of
> the code, so I don't think it will take much effort to add support to some
> other architectures (like ARM), and I intend to do that if this patch is
> acceptable.
>
> One question: what's the right way to do the mangling (the "_JT") for the
> jump-table functions? For my purposes in CFI, I'd like to have a way of
> naming these jump entries that a pass at the IR level could also discover
> or reproduce. Is there a standard mangling facility for specialized
> suffixes?
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>

Just realized that there were a few line-length violations that I hadn't
cleaned up in the code. Here's a slightly tweaked patch.

Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140320/758cecaf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jump_instr.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 18560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140320/758cecaf/attachment.bin>