[llvm-dev] llvm bug 11944

Mon Apr 26 16:45:42 PDT 2021

Hello,
Yep I meant sal. Id think we coud have printfy sallike annottation added to
llvm libc at least for emulation of planned c++ extension about precond
postcond constraints that need to hold for calls to lib not to give
warnings or not to err. We could try to catch common risks if not
errors/holes early via such a way.

Not sure im 100% right here but if preconds/postconds can be moved fully to
compile time, we could try to get rid of many checks from libc code and for
example move them to asserts in debug only etc.

You may see by now already im enthusiast of solution of sw devel moving in
bit rusty direction like linux kernel plans to.

Another side question if we got or could use having solution(s) that big
redmond supplier has for catching many

pointer access/mem errors/leaks/usebeforealloc/useafterfree/global and
stack vars usedbefore init

kind of errors with 100% rate assumed all paths are taken. It is runtime
checks only though and might need extending interfaces of malloc free new
delete either via syntax extension or without if assisted by compiler.

Best regards,
Pawel Kunio

pon., 26.04.2021, 18:30 użytkownik David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
napisał:

> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 9:10 PM pawel k. <pawel.kunio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > To clarify on stdlib/libc.
>
> For what it's worth, there are several implementations of libc - GNU
> libc and LLVM libc (well, the latter is relatively new/incomplete)
> would be
>
> >  I like way ms has annotations in comments of their stdlib/libc.
>
> Ah, you're talking about SAL? (
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/sal-annotations?view=msvc-160
> )
>
> >  It is used by compiler as config script to something similar to static
> analyzer/warningsmodule both release and debug and as base for genning
> runtime checks in debug only.
> >
> > It helps to catch suspicious or wrong calls to stdlib/libc.
> >
> > If You were interested in something similar, id be willing to help here.
> You wouldnt have to write a new subcheker/subanalyzer per libc function.
>
> Yeah, there's some general attribute annotations (like for
> printf-style functions, for instance). Not sure if there are
> attributes for general array+arraybound parameters, for instance.
>
> - Dave
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Pawel Kunio
> >
> > pt., 23.04.2021, 21:11 użytkownik David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> napisał:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:29 AM pawel k. <pawel.kunio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> > Thank You for kind friendly warning. Just to get it right. It might
> be too tough or too pointless for someone to integrate it?
> >>
> >> Yeah, my rough guess is that it's a challenging problem - one that
> >> many LLVM developers care about (many uses of LLVM as a library where
> >> the use of global constructors adds to the application's startup time)
> >> and have tried to fix to varying degrees at various times, but haven't
> >> managed it.
> >>
> >> > As of from ones you proposed i should either stick to warning point
> misreporting bugs or something on analyzer or tidy. Id say complex algos
> connected with optimizations skipping opportunity etc I could try to catch
> them and measure or benchmark them or maybe write tests for but fir
> hardcore c++ development i could need some time to get back in full shape.
> >>
> >> Actually middle end optimizations can sometimes be some of the simpler
> >> code to fix/play with - so I wouldn't rule out playing with/modifying
> >> them, if it interests you.
> >>
> >> > I was thinking of another side project that should be doable. I could
> try to get the snapshot of libc api and try to parse it and use it as
> config script to what kind of issues look for in analyzer.
> >>
> >> Not sure I'm following here - are you referring to GNU libc, or LLVM's
> >> recent libc project? & which analyzer?
> >>
> >> Clang's Static Analyzer ( https://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/ ) - if
> >> you're talking about that, and thinking of finding bugs /in/ the
> >> analyzer (rather than using the analyzer to find bugs in other code)
> >> by running it on some existing codebase (like libc, GNU or LLVM's) and
> >> reporting what you find - yes, that could be useful. (though realize
> >> there's probably lots of already known bugs, so sometimes bug finding
> >> isn't the bottleneck/where there's a problem)
> >>
> >> > Thus emulating planned c++ feature of postconditions preconditions
> checker.
> >> > If i reget my rolodex, i might be able to get in touch with few
> whitehats who could provide data what kind of holes via which api calls are
> most common and generally what kind of attacks misusing api are possible if
> that would help on this one.
> >>
> >> Yeah, if there are new static analysis checks you've got a use for,
> >> could try implementing them as either Clang warnings, clang-tidy
> >> checks, or Clang Static Analyzer checks.
> >>
> >> - Dave
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Pawel Kunio
> >> >
> >> > pt., 23.04.2021, 04:59 użytkownik David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
> napisał:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:47 PM pawel k. <pawel.kunio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> > Sorry about my bad english and wrecked communications line. I
> meant 11944 bug from llvm database. As on our system, we had similar issue
> in sense on embedded project around lte and 5g base stations. Archs finally
> decided global compound constructors are forbidden due to startup overhead
> and call order unpredictability.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank You for mentioning warning enabling flag. That should help
> me pinpoint all interesting uses of this construct.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure thing - oh, the other thing you might find interesting,
> regarding
> >> >> the issues with global constructor ordering problems - there's a
> >> >> dynamic tool to help find those:
> >> >>
> https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerInitializationOrderFiasco
> >> >>
> >> >> > I will try to lookup how these global constructors are done in
> llvmlib. What i saw as general guideline along which commandline opts
> component is built i generally like. I dont see yet fully where is issue in
> moving it to runtime. Id think we could try to use some pattern like
> commandline opts tables from gcc but nit sure yet whether keep much in
> globals or store within specific apps/tools classes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In one of first phases id think of checking buildflags of clang
> what targets etc are enabled and register all supported commands and maybe
> prescan command line for further flags which enable or disable other flags.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I will try to build llvm lib with this warning enabled to see all
> opts uses and learn the api etc. I need to understand furst completely
> based on what logic macros and flags which flags blocks should be
> registered and later kept or disabled if we need to scan commandline in
> multiple passes etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will say I wouldn't readily suggest this as the /best/ place to
> >> >> start in LLVM - if you're interested in getting into the project
> >> >> generally, without any particular preference for which part - given
> >> >> this has been thought about a fair bit by folks throughout the
> >> >> project's life, the amount of design work/time involved by core
> >> >> developers will probably be non-trivial to figure out the right path
> >> >> before the mechanical work can begin. Fair warning.
> >> >>
> >> >> Usually I suggest starting with clang warnings (or
> >> >> clang-format/clang-tidy these days) bugs, since they can be fairly
> >> >> narrow/sometimes relatively isolated to fix. Source location bugs or
> >> >> fixits (warnings that point to the wrong part of the code, or  errors
> >> >> that don't offer a fixit hint when they could) can be interesting
> >> >> learning experiences about the Clang Abstract Syntax Tree/source
> >> >> location information.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if you're more interested in LLVM proper - probably middle-end
> >> >> misoptimizations (probably easier to fix bugs/miscompiles than fixing
> >> >> missed optimizations - the latter are probably more likely to be
> >> >> deeply involved work/changes to make an optimization more powerful
> for
> >> >> some reason).
> >> >>
> >> >> > Ill try to learn all i can first from code and gathered warnings
> and if questions arise ill ring back with them and if not ill try to
> propose some solution after fully testing it on current testsuite and all
> targets etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep, always happy to answer questions/provide pointers.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Dave
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> > Pawel Kunio
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > pt., 23.04.2021, 02:30 użytkownik David Blaikie <
> dblaikie at gmail.com> napisał:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [It might be helpful if you used a few more words & fully
> explained
> >> >> >> what you're referring to - I'm having a hard time following your
> >> >> >> emails in this abbreviated writing style]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You looked at an existing bug (do you have a link to it, or bug
> number
> >> >> >> on the bugs.llvm.org database) related to the use of global
> >> >> >> constructors in the LLVM codebase? Or in another codebase using
> LLVM?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You had similar issues on another codebase you worked on where you
> >> >> >> weren't allowed to use any non-trivial global constructors?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> & you're proposing creating a checker or other tool to help find
> these
> >> >> >> cases? Or proposing using an existing tool for finding such
> things?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Clang does have a warning for this already, I believe:
> >> >> >> -Wglobal-constructors. But, yes, the LLVM codebase isn't remotely
> >> >> >> ready for that and it's not been a high enough priority for
> anyone to
> >> >> >> really clean it up - mostly because the main use of global
> >> >> >> constructors is in the LLVM command line argument handling code -
> so
> >> >> >> it's a non-trivial design/redesign/refactoring effort to figure
> out
> >> >> >> the right new design for that and make all the changes necessary
> to
> >> >> >> migrate to such a design. (after that there'd probably be a bunch
> of
> >> >> >> smaller more incremental changes to cleanup global constructors
> and
> >> >> >> get the codebase to have no -Wglobal-constructors warnings, then
> we
> >> >> >> could turn on the warning to ensure we didn't regress)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  - Dave
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 4:50 PM pawel k. via llvm-dev
> >> >> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >> > I took glimpse of PR llvm and or clang has ie lib cpp compound
> constructing global vars which makes objects get constructed in random
> order and with nonzero startup cpu/time overhead.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In one of rather mighty embedded projects for 4g enodeb and
> later 5g base stations we had similar issue. It was forbidden to complex
> construct global vars.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We could fancy clang syntax checker having option to early
> detect and track those so we could now how many are still left if any. I
> would disencourage running it on testsuite though as there were many false
> positives reported there.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Happy if that helps any.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Best regards,
> >> >> >> > Pawel Kunio
> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> >> >> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> >> >> > https://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/20210427/af18a209/attachment-0001.html>