Skip to content

[IPSCCP][FuncSpec] Protect against metadata access from call args. #124284

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 25, 2025
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionSpecialization.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -415,6 +415,8 @@ Constant *InstCostVisitor::visitCallBase(CallBase &I) {

for (unsigned Idx = 0, E = I.getNumOperands() - 1; Idx != E; ++Idx) {
Value *V = I.getOperand(Idx);
if (isa<MetadataAsValue>(V))
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should perhaps ConstantFoldCall be handling this?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe it is the findConstantFor -> getLatticeValueFor call that causes the problem, as the value is not in the lattice.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then should the isa(V) be moved inside findConstantFor?

if (isa<MetadataAsValue>(V))
  return nullptr;
if (auto *C = dyn_cast<Constant>(V))
  return C;
...

Would a metadata operand be possible to appear in anything else other than a call? If not, then let's leave it as is.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was wondering that - but calls should be the most common place. For other operations like load / stores the metadata will be an extra operands, not one of the ones we are already looking at like the Value or Pointer.
I believe this is where they are excluded for normal SCCP:

if (A.get()->getType()->isMetadataTy())

return nullptr;
Constant *C = findConstantFor(V);
if (!C)
return nullptr;
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
; RUN: opt -passes=ipsccp -force-specialization -S < %s | FileCheck %s

define float @test(ptr %this, float %cm, i1 %0) strictfp {
; CHECK-LABEL: define float @test(
; CHECK-SAME: ptr [[THIS:%.*]], float [[CM:%.*]], i1 [[TMP0:%.*]]) #[[ATTR0:[0-9]+]] {
; CHECK-NEXT: [[ENTRY:.*:]]
; CHECK-NEXT: [[CMP:%.*]] = call i1 @llvm.experimental.constrained.fcmps.f32(float [[CM]], float 0.000000e+00, metadata !"ole", metadata !"fpexcept.strict")
; CHECK-NEXT: [[CALL295:%.*]] = call float @test.specialized.1(ptr null, float 0.000000e+00, i1 false)
; CHECK-NEXT: ret float 0.000000e+00
;
entry:
%cmp = call i1 @llvm.experimental.constrained.fcmps.f32(float %cm, float 0.000000e+00, metadata !"ole", metadata !"fpexcept.strict") #0
%call295 = call float @test(ptr null, float 0.000000e+00, i1 false) #0
ret float 0.000000e+00
}

Loading