[LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)

Tue Nov 19 10:21:27 PST 2013

Quoting the C11 standard, section 5.1.2.4:

(4) “Two expression evaluations conﬂict if one of them modiﬁes a memory location and the other one reads or modiﬁes the same memory location”

(25) “The execution of a program contains a data race if it contains two conﬂicting actions in different threads, at least one of which is not atomic, and neither happens before the other. Any such data race results in undeﬁned behavior”

(18) “An evaluation A happens before an evaluation B if A is sequenced before B or A inter-thread happens before B”

The load and the store are in conflict (one is a load and the other is a store to the same location) and neither is atomic. So the question is whether they happen-before each other.
Since they are not in the same thread, they are not sequenced before one another, so the only option is inter-thread happens before.

I can’t see an inter-thread happens-before relation here.

From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 19:59
To: Kuperstein, Michael M
Cc: Evgeniy Stepanov; LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com<mailto:michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com>> wrote:
What I’m trying to say is that according to my understanding of the C++11 memory model, even in that small reproducer, the store to g and the load from g are in fact a data race.
(This is regardless of the fact the load is protected by a branch that is not taken.)

My understanding of the standard is quite the opposite.

From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com<mailto:kcc at google.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 19:46
To: Kuperstein, Michael M
Cc: Evgeniy Stepanov; LLVM Developers Mailing List

Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M <michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com<mailto:michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com>> wrote:
My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race.

To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including speculative loads - for non-atomic variables.
I believe what's most likely happening (without looking at the Mozilla source) is that the original program contains a C++ data race, and the transformation exposes it to TSan.

The original program is race-free.
I've posted a minimized reproducer that actually triggers a tsan false positive at O1 here:
https://code.google.com/p/thread-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=40#c5

-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>] On Behalf Of Evgeniy Stepanov
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 18:55
To: Kostya Serebryany
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)

The root cause of those issues is the fact that sanitizers verify
C++-level semantics with LLVM IR level instrumentation. For example,
speculative loads are OK in IR if it can be proved that the load won't trap, but in C++ it would be a data race.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com<mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I
>> don't want to derail the review  thread...
>>
>> Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general?
>> (why do they only affect sanitizers?)
>
>
> The recent case from mozilla
> (https://code.google.com/p/thread-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=40#c2) is
> a legal optimization -- it hoists a safe load (i.e. a load which is
> known not to
> fail) out of conditional branch.
> It reduces the number of basic blocks and branches, and so I think
> it's good in general.
> I can't imagine a case where this optimization will break a valid program.
> Which is the second one you are referring to?
>
> --kcc
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com<mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And we've been just informed by the mozilla folks about yet another
>>> case of optimization being hostile to sanitizers:
>>> hoisting a safe load out of conditional branch introduces a race
>>> which tsan happily reports.
>>> https://code.google.com/p/thread-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=40#c2
>>>
>>> --kcc
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com<mailto:kcc at google.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:27 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com<mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we have precedence for this kind of change (where sanitizers
>>>>> affect optimizations in arbitrary internal ways - not simply by
>>>>> enabling/disabling certain passes)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. AddressSanitizer and ThreadSanitizer disable load widening
>>>> that would create a partially out-of-bounds or a racy access.
>>>> See lib/Analysis/MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp (search for
>>>> Attribute::SanitizeAddress and Attribute::SanitizeThread).
>>>> This case with MemorySanitizer is slightly different because we are
>>>> not fighting a false positive, but rather a debug-info-damaging optimization.
>>>>
>>>> --kcc
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, does this need some deeper discussion about alternatives
>>>>> (is it important that we be able to produce equivalent code
>>>>> without the sanitizers enabled?)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov
>>>>> <eugenis at google.com<mailto:eugenis at google.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Branch folding optimization often leads to confusing MSan reports
>>>>>> due to lost debug info.
>>>>>> For example,
>>>>>> 1: if (x < 0)
>>>>>> 2:   if (y < 0)
>>>>>> 3:    do_something();
>>>>>> is transformed into something like
>>>>>>   %0 = and i32 %y, %x
>>>>>>   %1 = icmp slt i32 %0, 0
>>>>>>   br i1 %1, label %if.then2, label %if.end3 where all 3
>>>>>> instructions are associated with line 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch disables folding of conditional branches in functions
>>>>>> with sanitize_memory attribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2214
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Files:
>>>>>>   lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
>>>>>>   test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/branch-fold-msan.ll
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Index: lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
>>>>>> =================================================================
>>>>>> ==
>>>>>> --- lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
>>>>>> +++ lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp
>>>>>> @@ -1967,6 +1967,13 @@
>>>>>>  bool llvm::FoldBranchToCommonDest(BranchInst *BI) {
>>>>>>    BasicBlock *BB = BI->getParent();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +  // This optimization results in confusing MemorySanitizer reports.
>>>>>> Use of
>>>>>> +  // uninitialized value in this branch instruction is reported
>>>>>> + with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> +  // predecessor's debug location.
>>>>>> +  if (BB->getParent()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::SanitizeMemory) &&
>>>>>> +      BI->isConditional())
>>>>>> +    return false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>    Instruction *Cond = 0;
>>>>>>    if (BI->isConditional())
>>>>>>      Cond = dyn_cast<Instruction>(BI->getCondition());
>>>>>> Index: test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/branch-fold-msan.ll
>>>>>> =================================================================
>>>>>> ==
>>>>>> --- test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/branch-fold-msan.ll
>>>>>> +++ test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/branch-fold-msan.ll
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
>>>>>> +; RUN: opt < %s -simplifycfg -S | FileCheck %s
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +declare void @callee()
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +; Test that conditional branches are not folded with sanitize_memory.
>>>>>> +define void @caller(i32 %x, i32 %y) sanitize_memory { ; CHECK:
>>>>>> +define void @caller(i32 [[X:%.*]], i32 [[Y:%.*]]) ; CHECK: icmp
>>>>>> +slt i32 {{.*}}[[X]] ; CHECK: icmp slt i32 {{.*}}[[Y]] ; CHECK:
>>>>>> +ret void
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +entry:
>>>>>> +  %cmp = icmp slt i32 %x, 0
>>>>>> +  br i1 %cmp, label %if.then, label %if.end3
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +if.then:                                          ; preds = %entry
>>>>>> +  %cmp1 = icmp slt i32 %y, 0
>>>>>> +  br i1 %cmp1, label %if.then2, label %if.end
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +if.then2:                                         ; preds = %if.then
>>>>>> +  call void @callee()
>>>>>> +  br label %if.end
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +if.end:                                           ; preds =
>>>>>> %if.then2, %if.then
>>>>>> +  br label %if.end3
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +if.end3:                                          ; preds = %if.end,
>>>>>> %entry
>>>>>> +  ret void
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131119/e2d5401b/attachment.html>