[llvm-dev] Libfuzzer depending on uninitialized debug info

[Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:

> It might be a wider problem than libfuzzer.  I did want to raise the
> problem asap and libfuzzer is something we know has the problem.
>
> If it came across as "libfuzzer is evil" that was not my intent, sorry!
>
No, no, I did not mean you implied that :)
Just wanted to make sure everyone understand that this is not
libFuzzer-specific.

Looking at lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp:
  DebugLoc EntryLoc;
  if (IsEntryBB) {
    if (auto SP = F.getSubprogram())
      EntryLoc = DebugLoc::get(SP->getScopeLine(), 0, SP);
...
  } else {
    EntryLoc = IP->getDebugLoc();
  }
  IRBuilder<> IRB(&*IP);
  IRB.SetCurrentDebugLocation(EntryLoc);

So, using this I assumed that the newly generated instructions have proper
debug info,
and so far it worked.

I wonder if you can re-commit your changes under a flag, off-by default, so
that everyone interested can play with it?



> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 01, 2016 2:53 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] Libfuzzer depending on uninitialized debug info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> TL;DR:  LibFuzzer appears to depend on debug-info source locations for
> whatever IR instrumentation it uses; however, that instrumentation does
> not have proper source locations attached to it, leading to potentially
> incorrect reporting.  The short-term fix is to make sure the debug info
> it needs is actually set up; the long-term fix is not to rely on debug
> info, because some optimizations will (correctly) erase it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Why is this libFuzzer-specific?
>
> We were just [un]lucky to detect the problem early with one of the
> libFuzzer
>
> tests that required debug info.
>
>
>
> Any tool that needs debug info will suffer from the same problem. No?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The long version:
>
> When Clang generates IR with debug info, one thing it does is attach a
> source location to most IR instructions.  This source location (at least
> in principle) is carried through optimizations, SelectionDAG, MachineIR,
> assembler source, and ultimately ends up in the "line table" in the
> object file.  The line table describes a mapping from the virtual
> addresses of instructions to source locations, which is very useful to
> debuggers and other tools.
>
> Not all IR instructions have a source location attached to them.  When
> that happens, no specific line-table record is emitted for any machine
> instruction produced from that IR instruction.  In DWARF, that means you
> assume the instruction belongs to the same source location as the
> instruction that precedes it in memory.
>
> This is a problem when the first instruction in a machine-basic-block has
> no explicit source location, because it implicitly inherits the source
> location of the last instruction of the basic block that precedes it in
> memory.  That means, the source location is entirely at the mercy of
> block layout and other optimizations.
>
> In effect, the source location for that instruction is UNINITIALIZED.
>
> In r288283, I committed a patch that explicitly initialized the line
> number for some instructions to line 0.  The DWARF spec says that line 0
> means there is no specific source location for the instruction. Debuggers
> and other tools generally respond to this looking *forward* in the
> instruction stream to find the *next* instruction with an explicit non-0
> location, rather than backward to the *previous* instruction with an
> explicit location.
>
> This caused a libFuzzer test to fail, because it depended on seeing a
> real source location for something, and got line 0 instead.  This tells
> me libFuzzer is depending on an uninitialized source location.  Kostya
> backed out that patch for me, but we really want to have it for improved
> debugger single-stepping behavior.
>
> I am unclear on what instrumentation the fuzzer is using, although the
> instructions for building it suggest it's ASAN instrumentation. Whatever
> it is, either the instrumentation should use its own source-location
> information scheme, or it should initialize the debug info that it is
> depending on.
>
> Note that debug info is not necessarily reliable in the face of
> optimization.  If two blocks with different source locations get merged,
> most likely the source location will be zeroed (and that's not my patch,
> that's optimization-specific behavior).  Therefore, I would recommend
> that fuzzer/asan/whoever stop relying on debug info for source locations,
> if we want all that to work on optimized code.
>
> In the short term it's probably easier to find places where the
> instrumentation is missing debug info, and add it.  But that's not going
> to be reliable for optimized code.
> --paulr
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/llvm-dev/attachments/20161201/39820a27/attachment-0001.html>