On 10/04/2018 08:58 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 8/27/18 9:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:32 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/27/2018 02:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 7:26 AM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/24/2018 09:58 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The warning suppression for -Wstringop-truncation looks for
the next statement after a truncating strncpy to see if it
adds a terminating nul. This only works when the next
statement can be reached using the Gimple statement iterator
which isn't until after gimplification. As a result, strncpy
calls that truncate their constant argument that are being
folded to memcpy this early get diagnosed even if they are
followed by the nul assignment:
const char s[] = "12345";
char d[3];
void f (void)
{
strncpy (d, s, sizeof d - 1); // -Wstringop-truncation
d[sizeof d - 1] = 0;
}
To avoid the warning I propose to defer folding strncpy to
memcpy until the pointer to the basic block the strnpy call
is in can be used to try to reach the next statement (this
happens as early as ccp1). I'm aware of the preference to
fold things early but in the case of strncpy (a relatively
rarely used function that is often misused), getting
the warning right while folding a bit later but still fairly
early on seems like a reasonable compromise. I fear that
otherwise, the false positives will drive users to adopt
other unsafe solutions (like memcpy) where these kinds of
bugs cannot be as readily detected.
Tested on x86_64-linux.
Martin
PS There still are outstanding cases where the warning can
be avoided. I xfailed them in the test for now but will
still try to get them to work for GCC 9.
gcc-87028.diff
PR tree-optimization/87028 - false positive -Wstringop-truncation strncpy with
global variable source string
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/87028
* gimple-fold.c (gimple_fold_builtin_strncpy): Avoid folding when
statement doesn't belong to a basic block.
* tree-ssa-strlen.c (maybe_diag_stxncpy_trunc): Handle MEM_REF on
the left hand side of assignment.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR tree-optimization/87028
* c-c++-common/Wstringop-truncation.c: Remove xfails.
* gcc.dg/Wstringop-truncation-5.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/gimple-fold.c b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
index 07341eb..284c2fb 100644
--- a/gcc/gimple-fold.c
+++ b/gcc/gimple-fold.c
@@ -1702,6 +1702,11 @@ gimple_fold_builtin_strncpy (gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi,
if (tree_int_cst_lt (ssize, len))
return false;
+ /* Defer warning (and folding) until the next statement in the basic
+ block is reachable. */
+ if (!gimple_bb (stmt))
+ return false;
I think you want cfun->cfg as the test here. They should be equivalent
in practice.
Please do not add 'cfun' references. Note that the next stmt is also accessible
when there is no CFG. I guess the issue is that we fold this during
gimplification where the next stmt is not yet "there" (but still in GENERIC)?
That was my assumption. I almost suggested peeking at gsi_next and
avoiding in that case.
So I'd rather add guards to maybe_fold_stmt in the gimplifier then.
So I think the concern with adding the guards to maybe_fold_stmt is the
possibility of further fallout.
I guess they could be written to target this case specifically to
minimize fallout, but that feels like we're doing the same thing
(band-aid) just in a different place.
We generally do not want to have unfolded stmts in the IL when we can avoid that
which is why we fold most stmts during gimplification. We also do that because
we now do less folding on GENERIC.
But an unfolded call in the IL should always be safe and we've got
plenty of opportunities to fold it later.
Well - we do. The very first one is forwprop though which means we'll miss to
re-write some memcpy parts into SSA:
NEXT_PASS (pass_ccp, false /* nonzero_p */);
/* After CCP we rewrite no longer addressed locals into SSA
form if possible. */
NEXT_PASS (pass_forwprop);
likewise early object-size will be confused by memcpy calls that just exist
to avoid TBAA issues (another of our recommendations besides using unions).
We do fold mem* early for a reason ;)
"We can always do warnings earlier" would be a similar true sentence.
I'm not disagreeing at all. There's a natural tension between the
benefits of folding early to enable more optimizations downstream and
leaving the IL in a state where we can give actionable warnings.
Similar trade-offs between folding early and losing information
as a result also impact high-level optimizations.
For instance, folding the strlen argument below
void f3 (struct A* p)
{
__builtin_strcpy (p->a, "123");
if (__builtin_strlen (p->a + 1) != 2) // not folded
__builtin_abort ();
}
into
_2 = &MEM[(void *)p_4(D) + 2B];
early on defeats the strlen optimization because there is no
mechanism to determine what member (void *)p_4(D) + 2B refers
to (this is bug 86955).
Another example is folding of strlen calls with no-nconstant
offsets into constant strings like here:
const char a[] = "123";
void f (int i)
{
if (__builtin_strlen (&a[i]) > 3)
__builtin_abort ();
}
into sizeof a - 1 - i, which then prevents the result from
being folded to false (bug 86434), not to mention the code
it emits for out-of-bounds indices.
There are a number of other similar examples in Bugzilla
that I've filed as I discovered then during testing my
warnings (e.g., 86572).
In my mind, transforming library calls into "lossy" low-level
primitives like MEM_REF would be better done only after higher
level optimizations have had a chance to analyze them. Ditto
for other similar transformations (like to other library calls).
Having more accurate information helps both optimization and
warnings. It also makes the warnings more meaningful.
Printing "memcpy overflows a buffer" when the source code
has a call to strncpy is less than ideal.
Similarly there's a natural tension between warning early vs warning
late. Code that triggers the warning may ultimately be proved
unreachable, or we may discover simplifications that either suppress or
expose a warning.
There is no easy answer here. But I think we can legitimately ask
questions. ie, does folding strnlen here really improve things
downstream in ways that are measurable? Does the false positive really
impact the utility of the warning? etc.
I'd hazard a guess that Martin is particularly sensitive to false
positives based on feedback he's received from our developer community
as well as downstream consumers of his work.
Yes. The kernel folks in particular have done a lot of work
cleaning up their code in an effort to adopt the warning and
attribute nonstring. They have been keeping me in the loop
on their progress (and feeding me back test cases with false
positives and negatives they run into).
Martin
Both come at a cost. You know I'm usually declaring GCC to be an
optimizing compiler
and not a static analysis engine ;) So I'm not too much convinced when seeing
disabling/delaying folding here and there to catch some false
negatives for -Wxyz.
We need to work out a plan rather than throwing sticks here and there.
I still lean towards the optimization side in general, but I'm also a
believer that the right place to issue warnings is in the tool that gets
used every day. Deferring it to some other tool that runs at a later
time which all developers may not have access to and not all projects
use means the static analysis side is orders of magnitude less useful
than it should be.
I think the long term plan in my mind would be to not fold during
gimplification. Immediately after gimplification we'd do warning
analysis, then we'd commence with folding everything before starting the
gimple optimization pipeline.
With the natural tensions around warning early vs warning late the
warning analysis phase may choose to mark statements in various ways
rather than issuing the warning at that time. ie, it might choose to
mark the statement with the set of potential issues as well as marking
those which were proven safe. A later pass could then refine things and
issue the actual warning. Or something like that.
You'll probably note this mirrors the design I wanted to do for
Wuninitialized to improve its stability while at the same time allowing
us the option of trying to minimize false positives.
But all that seems a bit pie in the sky right now. I think the question
we should answer is do we tackle 87028 now or defer it to a later date
when we've fleshed this out further?
Jeff
