[PATCH] D99417: [AArch64][v8.5A] Add BTI to all function starts
Pablo Barrio via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Apr 14 07:24:44 PDT 2021
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rGcca40aa8d8aa: [AArch64][v8.5A] Add BTI to all function starts (authored by pbarrio).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99417?vs=334224&id=337448#toc
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99417/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D99417
Files:
llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64BranchTargets.cpp
llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/branch-target-enforcement.mir
llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/patchable-function-entry-bti.ll
Index: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/patchable-function-entry-bti.ll
===================================================================
--- llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/patchable-function-entry-bti.ll
+++ llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/patchable-function-entry-bti.ll
@@ -48,19 +48,20 @@
}
;; -fpatchable-function-entry=1 -mbranch-protection=bti
-;; For M=0, don't create .Lpatch0 if the initial instruction is not BTI,
-;; even if other basic blocks may have BTI.
+;; We add BTI c even when the function has internal linkage
define internal void @f1i(i64 %v) "patchable-function-entry"="1" "branch-target-enforcement"="true" {
; CHECK-LABEL: f1i:
; CHECK-NEXT: .Lfunc_begin3:
; CHECK: // %bb.0:
+; CHECK-NEXT: hint #34
+; CHECK-NEXT: .Lpatch1:
; CHECK-NEXT: nop
;; Other basic blocks have BTI, but they don't affect our decision to not create .Lpatch0
; CHECK: .LBB{{.+}} // %sw.bb1
; CHECK-NEXT: hint #36
; CHECK: .section __patchable_function_entries,"awo", at progbits,f1i{{$}}
; CHECK-NEXT: .p2align 3
-; CHECK-NEXT: .xword .Lfunc_begin3
+; CHECK-NEXT: .xword .Lpatch1
entry:
switch i64 %v, label %sw.bb0 [
i64 1, label %sw.bb1
Index: llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/branch-target-enforcement.mir
===================================================================
--- llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/branch-target-enforcement.mir
+++ llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/branch-target-enforcement.mir
@@ -116,12 +116,15 @@
RET undef $lr, implicit killed $w0
---
-# Internal function, not address-taken in this module, so no BTI needed.
+# Internal function, not address-taken in this module, however the compiler
+# cannot 100% ensure that later parts of the toolchain won't add indirect
+# jumps. E.g. a linker adding a thunk to extend the range of a direct jump.
+# Therefore, even this case needs a BTI.
name: simple_internal
body: |
bb.0.entry:
; CHECK-LABEL: name: simple_internal
- ; CHECK-NOT: HINT
+ ; CHECK: HINT 34
; CHECK: RET
$w0 = ORRWrs $wzr, $wzr, 0
RET undef $lr, implicit killed $w0
Index: llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64BranchTargets.cpp
===================================================================
--- llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64BranchTargets.cpp
+++ llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64BranchTargets.cpp
@@ -64,7 +64,6 @@
LLVM_DEBUG(
dbgs() << "********** AArch64 Branch Targets **********\n"
<< "********** Function: " << MF.getName() << '\n');
- const Function &F = MF.getFunction();
// LLVM does not consider basic blocks which are the targets of jump tables
// to be address-taken (the address can't escape anywhere else), but they are
@@ -78,13 +77,16 @@
bool MadeChange = false;
for (MachineBasicBlock &MBB : MF) {
bool CouldCall = false, CouldJump = false;
- // If the function is address-taken or externally-visible, it could be
- // indirectly called. PLT entries and tail-calls use BR, but when they are
+ // Even in cases where a function has internal linkage and is only called
+ // directly in its translation unit, it can still be called indirectly if
+ // the linker decides to add a thunk to it for whatever reason (say, for
+ // example, if it is finally placed far from its call site and a BL is not
+ // long-range enough). PLT entries and tail-calls use BR, but when they are
// are in guarded pages should all use x16 or x17 to hold the called
// address, so we don't need to set CouldJump here. BR instructions in
// non-guarded pages (which might be non-BTI-aware code) are allowed to
// branch to a "BTI c" using any register.
- if (&MBB == &*MF.begin() && (F.hasAddressTaken() || !F.hasLocalLinkage()))
+ if (&MBB == &*MF.begin())
CouldCall = true;
// If the block itself is address-taken, it could be indirectly branched
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D99417.337448.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20210414/f7e31a3e/attachment.bin>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list