[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] clang and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1

[Serge Guelton via llvm-dev]

> So I would conclude that the builtin works just fine, but the issue is
> with the exact rules for when and how the inline function is preferred
> over the externally available version.

Fascinating. I can elaborate a bit more based on
https://godbolt.org/z/EZGfqd : there's a special handling for memcpy (and
probably other similar functions) in clang that prevents him from
considering the inline version.I'll dig in clang source to find out more
about this behavior.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:11 AM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Serge Guelton via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> > > Are you sure you've diagnosed the issue correctly?
> __builtin___memcpy_chk
> > works correctly, as far as I know.
> > 100% sure. Let's have a look at the output of
> >
> >   #include <string.h>
> >   static char dest[10];
> >   char* square(int n) {
> >     memcpy(dest, "hello", n);
> >     return dest;
> >   }
> >
> > compiled with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 -O1 : https://godbolt.org/z/UvABWp
> >
> > Clang issues a call to memcpy, while gcc issues a call to __memcpy_chk.
> > The call to __memcpy_chk performs extra runtime checks memcpy doesn't,
> > and clang doesn't generate the extra checks inline either. This is a
> > separate
> > concern from the accuracy of __builtin_object_size, just a different
> runtime
> > behavior.
> >
> > Clang could generate the call to __memcpy_chk if its declaration is
> > available, which is the case for the glibc.
>
> No, this doesn't seem to be the case.
>
> I expanded your testcase by removing the string.h include and replacing it
> with the relevant bits of it:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/NKUQbW
>
> The regular call to memcpy ends up without the extra safety checks and
> just generates a call to memcpy. But if I call __builtin___memcpy_chk
> directly, it does generate a call to __memcpy_chk.
>
> So I would conclude that the builtin works just fine, but the issue is
> with the exact rules for when and how the inline function is preferred
> over the externally available version.
>
> I added a "#define VISIBIILTY extern" to ease testing and changing it. If
> you change that into static, you'll see that the inline version of the
> function actually ends up used, and it does generate a call to
> __memcpy_chk even there.
>
> And this does seem to show that __builtin_object_size does work fine from
> within an inlined function now, contrary to my earlier comments.
>
> // Martin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191204/3d2925fa/attachment.html>