Skip to content

release/20.x: [AArch64] PAUTH_PROLOGUE should not be duplicated with PAuthLR (#124775) #125230

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
Feb 1, 2025

Conversation

llvmbot
Copy link
Member

@llvmbot llvmbot commented Jan 31, 2025

Backport 36b3c43

Requested by: @ostannard

@llvmbot llvmbot added this to the LLVM 20.X Release milestone Jan 31, 2025
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member Author

llvmbot commented Jan 31, 2025

@tmatheson-arm What do you think about merging this PR to the release branch?

@llvmbot
Copy link
Member Author

llvmbot commented Jan 31, 2025

@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-aarch64

Author: None (llvmbot)

Changes

Backport 36b3c43

Requested by: @ostannard


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125230.diff

2 Files Affected:

  • (modified) llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td (+6-1)
  • (added) llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/pauthlr-prologue-duplication.mir (+88)
diff --git a/llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td b/llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td
index d112d4f10e47d9..b77246200db645 100644
--- a/llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td
+++ b/llvm/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstrInfo.td
@@ -1773,7 +1773,12 @@ def : InstAlias<"xpaclri", (XPACLRI), 0>;
 
 let Uses = [LR, SP], Defs = [LR] in {
 // Insertion point of LR signing code.
-def PAUTH_PROLOGUE : Pseudo<(outs), (ins), []>, Sched<[]>;
+def PAUTH_PROLOGUE : Pseudo<(outs), (ins), []>, Sched<[]> {
+  // When using PAuthLR, the address of one of the instructions this expands
+  // into is used as an input to the signature calculation, so this must not be
+  // duplicated.
+  let isNotDuplicable = 1;
+}
 // Insertion point of LR authentication code.
 // The RET terminator of the containing machine basic block may be replaced
 // with a combined RETA(A|B) instruction when rewriting this Pseudo.
diff --git a/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/pauthlr-prologue-duplication.mir b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/pauthlr-prologue-duplication.mir
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000000..5e57604263793c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/llvm/test/CodeGen/AArch64/pauthlr-prologue-duplication.mir
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_mir_test_checks.py UTC_ARGS: --version 5
+# RUN: llc -mtriple aarch64-none-elf -run-pass=block-placement -O3 -o - %s | FileCheck %s
+
+## Check that block-placement does not perform tail duplication on the
+## PAUTH_EPILOGUE instruction. If that happened, the two prologues would use
+## different addresses while calculating the return address signature, so the
+## epilogue could only be correct for (at most) one of them.
+
+--- |
+  define void @test() "frame-pointer"="non-leaf" {
+  entry:
+    ret void
+  }
+
+  declare void @f()
+...
+---
+name:            test
+body:             |
+  ; CHECK-LABEL: name: test
+  ; CHECK: bb.0.entry:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   successors: %bb.1(0x30000000), %bb.2(0x50000000)
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   liveins: $w0, $w1, $lr
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   CBZW renamable $w0, %bb.1
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: bb.2:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   successors: %bb.3(0x80000000)
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   liveins: $w0, $w1, $lr
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   B %bb.3
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: bb.1:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   successors: %bb.3(0x80000000)
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   liveins: $w1, $lr
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   renamable $w8 = MOVZWi 1, 0
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: bb.3:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   successors: %bb.5(0x30000000), %bb.4(0x50000000)
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   liveins: $w1, $w8, $lr
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   frame-setup PAUTH_PROLOGUE implicit-def $lr, implicit killed $lr, implicit $sp
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   CBZW killed renamable $w1, %bb.5
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: bb.4:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   successors: %bb.5(0x80000000)
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   BL @f, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit-def $sp
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: {{  $}}
+  ; CHECK-NEXT: bb.5:
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   BL @f, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit-def $sp
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   frame-destroy PAUTH_EPILOGUE implicit-def $lr, implicit killed $lr, implicit $sp
+  ; CHECK-NEXT:   TCRETURNdi @f, 0, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit $sp
+  bb.0.entry:
+    successors: %bb.1(0x30000000), %bb.2(0x50000000)
+    liveins: $w0, $w1, $lr
+
+    CBNZW renamable $w0, %bb.2
+
+  bb.1:
+    successors: %bb.3(0x80000000)
+    liveins: $w1, $lr
+
+    renamable $w8 = MOVZWi 1, 0
+    B %bb.3
+
+  bb.2:
+    successors: %bb.3(0x80000000)
+    liveins: $w0, $w1, $lr
+
+  bb.3:
+    successors: %bb.5(0x30000000), %bb.4(0x50000000)
+    liveins: $w1, $w8, $lr
+
+    frame-setup PAUTH_PROLOGUE implicit-def $lr, implicit killed $lr, implicit $sp
+    CBZW killed renamable $w1, %bb.5
+
+  bb.4:
+    successors: %bb.5(0x80000000)
+
+    BL @f, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit-def $sp
+
+  bb.5:
+    BL @f, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit-def dead $lr, implicit $sp, implicit-def $sp
+    frame-destroy PAUTH_EPILOGUE implicit-def $lr, implicit killed $lr, implicit $sp
+    TCRETURNdi @f, 0, csr_aarch64_aapcs, implicit $sp
+...

…124775)

When using PAuthLR, the PAUTH_PROLOGUE expands into a sequence of
instructions which takes the address of one of those instructions, and
uses that address to compute the return address signature. If this is
duplicated, there will be two different addresses used in calculating
the signature, so the epilogue will only be correct for (at most) one of
them.

This change also restricts code generation when using v8.3-A return
address signing, without PAuthLR. This isn't strictly needed, as
duplicating the prologue there would be valid. We could fix this by
having two copies of PAUTH_PROLOGUE, with and without isNotDuplicable,
but I don't think it's worth adding the extra complexity to a security
feature for that.

(cherry picked from commit 36b3c43)
@tstellar tstellar merged commit 184d178 into llvm:release/20.x Feb 1, 2025
8 of 11 checks passed
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 1, 2025

@ostannard (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add the release:note label to this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants