[llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage type (and implement -fsemantic-interposition)

Tue Nov 29 09:58:42 PST 2016

Hi Hal,

How would this new option/linkage type, differ from say using
-fvisibility=hidden/protected? and how would it address ODR for
protected/hidden symbols?

aswell as inlining and IPA, there is also an enormous amount of bloat of
dynamic metadata of the linked ELF program. Some numbers are provided in
this article about DSO export control with symbol visibility:

https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Clang/LLVM's support for ELF interposition is in a confusing state, and I
> propose making a few (hopefully simple) adjustments in order to bring our
> model into a self-consistent state.
>
> The problem: On ELF systems, global symbols can be interposed. This means,
> for example, that calls to global functions in some (shared) library
> defined in that same library might end up being redirected to an
> implementation in some other library (or in the main executable). The most
> common reason for this is the use of LD_PRELOAD, but there are plenty of
> other ways to trigger interposition as well. As a result, it is technically
> inconsistent to inline any global function or do inter-procedural analysis
> on them because the implementation might be replaced by code with
> completely different behavior at runtme (or link time). Clang has never
> supported this (i.e. we do treat these functions as being eligible for
> inlining and perform IPA on them). GCC, on the other hand, has
> traditionally respected the possibility of ELF interposition and refrained
> from doing these things (at least when compiling with -fPIC).
>
> I believe that Clang/LLVM's current behavior is the most-useful behavior
> and we should keep the current behavior (at least as a default). I do
> understand, however, that there are valid use cases for ELF interposition
> and places where we should allow it (e.g. when compiling certain system
> libraries). GCC recently added a flag -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition,
> where using -fno-semantic-interposition provides Clang/LLVM's behavior of
> assuming that ELF interposition will not be used.
>
> It has been suggested that, to be self consistent, LLVM should emit global
> symbols with protected ELF visibility in cases where we've assumed that ELF
> interposition won't happen. ELF protected visibility does seem to have
> exactly that meaning: A protected global symbol is externally visible but
> cannot be interposed. Unfortunately, as I understand it, on some major
> platforms (e.g. x86), protected-visibility symbols have a major flaw:
> Non-uniqueness of function pointers (i.e. the function pointer obtained to
> a function outside of the defining library might be different from the
> pointer obtained within the defining library). As a result, making this
> change might be practically prohibited (even if it makes sense in theory).
>
> Proposal:
>
>  1. Add a new linkage type, interposible, which is like external except
> that isInterposableLinkage will return true (thus preventing inlining, IPA,
> etc.). This is similar to weak linkage, in a sense, except that such
> symbols are never discarded and are not marked as weak for linking, etc.
>
>  2. Add -fsemantic-interposition/-fno-semantic-interposition to Clang.
> Default to -fno-semantic-interposition, but when -fsemantic-interposition
> is used, use interposible linkage for all functions where external linkage
> might otherwise have been used.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Some useful links:
> http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2015/04/GCC5-IPA-LTO-news.html (the section
> on the -fno-semantic-interposition flag)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01671.html
>
> On some issues with ELF protected-visibility symbols:
> http://www.macieira.org/blog/2012/01/sorry-state-of-
> dynamic-libraries-on-linux/
> http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/307
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19520
>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> P.S. For some previous discussion on this, see below...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *To: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com>
> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:50:15 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"James Y Knight" <jyknight at google.com>
> *To: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> *Cc: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, February 29, 2016 9:31:24 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>
> On Feb 26, 2016 8:50 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> *From: *"James Y Knight via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *To: *"Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>
>> *Cc: *"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:41:43 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Possible soundness issue with
>> available_externally (split from "RFC: Add guard intrinsics")
>>
>> While we're talking about this, I'd just mention again that the same
>> issue arises for *normal* functions too, when linked into a shared library:
>>    int foo() { return 1; }
>>    int bar() { return foo(); }
>>
>> Now, compare:
>>   clang -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c
>>   gcc -fPIC -O1 -S -o - test.c
>>
>> GCC will refuse to inline foo into bar, or use any information about foo
>> in compiling bar, because foo is exported in the dynamic symbol table, and
>> thus replaceable via symbol interposition.
>>
>> Clang assumes that you won't do that, or that you don't care what happens
>> if you do. It will happily inline. And, in absense of inlining (e.g. if foo
>> is too long to inline), clang will deduce function attributes about foo and
>> rely on those in bar -- despite that the call goes through the PLT and
>> could in fact be an entirely different unrelated implementation (or, for
>> that matter, a differently-optimized version of the same implementation).
>>
>> Is that *really* okay?
>>
>> I'm comfortable with saying that symbol interposition falls outside of
>> the model we have for the targeted system (at least by default), and thus,
>> this is okay. We also don't model the possibility of someone hex-editing
>> the binary ;)
>>
>
> I'm not really okay with it; the current behavior feels unprincipled.
>
> We have a visibility attribute which can be used to control this: On ELF
> systems, "default" visibililty allows interposition (unlike on Darwin) --
> that is, it explicitly ALLOWS for replacing the symbol's definition. The
> policy of "You can't replace the definition of the symbol, but it is
> globally visible" is exactly what the "protected" visibility mode is for.
>
> If we want to say that you can't interpose by default on ELF targets, that
> would be a choice. Then, we should make the default symbol visibility
> "protected" instead of "default". But, continuing to generate calls through
> the PLT -- which is only needed because the symbols might be replaced --
> while simultaneously making optimizations that are broken if they actually
> ARE replaced, seems kinda bogus.
>
> This makes sense, and I think you understand my concern here: Most
> programmers don't understand these issues, nor do they ever expect to use
> dynamic interposition. They do expect, however, that the compiler has good
> IPA and will use the information it is provided effectively. I'd be happy
> to make the default visibility protected, allowing us to continue
> optimizing well, and provide a principled behavior otherwise. Given, as you
> point out, this is the default on Darwin, is there experience from Darwin
> porting, or any other factors, that would indicate this would be a hardship?
>
> Thanks again,
> Hal
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161129/c331f4f0/attachment.html>