Hi, Richard,
> On Jul 14, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:17 AM Qing Zhao <qing.z...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Kees,
>>
>> I took a look at the kernel testing case you attached in the previous email,
>> and found the testing failed with the following case:
>>
>> #define INIT_STRUCT_static_all = { .one = arg->one, \
>> .two = arg->two, \
>> .three = arg->three, \
>> .four = arg->four, \
>> }
>>
>> i.e, when the structure type auto variable has been explicitly initialized
>> in the source code. -ftrivial-auto-var-init in the 4th version
>> does not initialize the paddings for such variables.
>>
>> But in the previous version of the patches ( 2 or 3),
>> -ftrivial-auto-var-init initializes the paddings for such variables.
>>
>> I intended to remove this part of the code from the 4th version of the patch
>> since the implementation for initializing such paddings is completely
>> different from
>> the initializing of the whole structure as a whole with memset in this
>> version of the implementation.
>>
>> If we really need this functionality, I will add another separate patch for
>> this additional functionality, but not with this patch.
>>
>> Richard, what’s your comment and suggestions on this?
>
> I think this can be addressed in the gimplifier by adjusting
> gimplify_init_constructor to clear
> the object before the initialization (if it's not done via aggregate
> copying).
I did this in the previous versions of the patch like the following:
@@ -5001,6 +5185,17 @@ gimplify_init_constructor (tree *expr_p, gimple_seq
*pre_p, gimple_seq *post_p,
/* If a single access to the target must be ensured and all elements
are zero, then it's optimal to clear whatever their number. */
cleared = true;
+ else if (flag_trivial_auto_var_init > AUTO_INIT_UNINITIALIZED
+ && !TREE_STATIC (object)
+ && type_has_padding (type))
+ /* If the user requests to initialize automatic variables with
+ paddings inside the type, we should initialize the paddings too.
+ C guarantees that brace-init with fewer initializers than members
+ aggregate will initialize the rest of the aggregate as-if it were
+ static initialization. In turn static initialization guarantees
+ that pad is initialized to zero bits.
+ So, it's better to clear the whole record under such situation. */
+ cleared = true;
else
cleared = false;
Then the paddings are also initialized to zeroes with this option. (Even for
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern).
Is the above change Okay? (With this change, when
-ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern, the paddings for the
structure variables that have explicit initializer will be ZEROed, not 0xFE)
> The clearing
> could be done via .DEFERRED_INIT.
You mean to add additional calls to .DEFERRED_INIT for each individual padding
of the structure in “gimplify_init_constructor"?
Then later during RTL expand, expand these calls the same as other calls?
>
> Note that I think .DEFERRED_INIT can be elided for variables that do
> not have their address
> taken - otherwise we'll also have to worry about aggregate copy
> initialization and SRA
> decomposing the copy, initializing only the used parts.
Please explain this a little bit more.
Thanks.
Qing
>
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Qing
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2021, at 4:29 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:28:55PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 12, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 05:38:02PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>>>>> This is the 4th version of the patch for the new security feature for
>>>>>> GCC.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like padding initialization has regressed to where things where
>>>>> in version 1[1] (it was, however, working in version 2[2]). I'm seeing
>>>>> these failures again in the kernel self-test:
>>>>>
>>>>> test_stackinit: small_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
>>>>> test_stackinit: big_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 61)
>>>>> test_stackinit: trailing_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)
>>>>> test_stackinit: small_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
>>>>> test_stackinit: big_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 61)
>>>>> test_stackinit: trailing_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)
>>>>
>>>> Are the above failures for -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero or
>>>> -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern? Or both?
>>>
>>> Yes, I was only testing =zero (the kernel test handles =pattern as well:
>>> it doesn't explicitly test for 0x00). I've verified with =pattern now,
>>> too.
>>>
>>>> For the current implementation, I believe that all paddings should be
>>>> initialized with this option,
>>>> for -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero, the padding will be initialized to zero
>>>> as before, however, for
>>>> -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern, the padding will be initialized to 0xFE
>>>> byte-repeatable patterns.
>>>
>>> I've double-checked that I'm using the right gcc, with the flag.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In looking at the gcc test cases, I think the wrong thing is
>>>>> being checked: we want to verify the padding itself. For example,
>>>>> in auto-init-17.c, the actual bytes after "four" need to be checked,
>>>>> rather than "four" itself.
>>>>
>>>> ******For the current auto-init-17.c
>>>>
>>>> 1 /* Verify zero initialization for array type with structure element with
>>>> 2 padding. */
>>>> 3 /* { dg-do compile } */
>>>> 4 /* { dg-options "-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero" } */
>>>> 5
>>>> 6 struct test_trailing_hole {
>>>> 7 int one;
>>>> 8 int two;
>>>> 9 int three;
>>>> 10 char four;
>>>> 11 /* "sizeof(unsigned long) - 1" byte padding hole here. */
>>>> 12 };
>>>> 13
>>>> 14
>>>> 15 int foo ()
>>>> 16 {
>>>> 17 struct test_trailing_hole var[10];
>>>> 18 return var[2].four;
>>>> 19 }
>>>> 20
>>>> 21 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl\t\\\$0," } } */
>>>> 22 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "movl\t\\\$20," } } */
>>>> 23 /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "rep stosq" } } */
>>>> ~
>>>> ******We have the assembly as: (-ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero)
>>>>
>>>> .file "auto-init-17.c"
>>>> .text
>>>> .globl foo
>>>> .type foo, @function
>>>> foo:
>>>> .LFB0:
>>>> .cfi_startproc
>>>> pushq %rbp
>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
>>>> .cfi_offset 6, -16
>>>> movq %rsp, %rbp
>>>> .cfi_def_cfa_register 6
>>>> subq $40, %rsp
>>>> leaq -160(%rbp), %rax
>>>> movq %rax, %rsi
>>>> movl $0, %eax
>>>> movl $20, %edx
>>>> movq %rsi, %rdi
>>>> movq %rdx, %rcx
>>>> rep stosq
>>>> movzbl -116(%rbp), %eax
>>>> movsbl %al, %eax
>>>> leave
>>>> .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8
>>>> ret
>>>> .cfi_endproc
>>>> .LFE0:
>>>> .size foo, .-foo
>>>> .section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
>>>>
>>>> From the above, we can see, “zero” will be used to initialize 8 * 20 = 16
>>>> * 10 bytes of memory starting from the beginning of “var”, that include
>>>> all the padding holes inside
>>>> This array of structure.
>>>>
>>>> I didn’t see issue with padding initialization here.
>>>
>>> Hm, agreed -- this test does do the right thing.
>>>
>>>>> But this isn't actually sufficient because they may _accidentally_
>>>>> be zero already. The kernel tests specifically make sure to fill the
>>>>> about-to-be-used stack with 0xff before calling a function like foo()
>>>>> above.
>>>
>>> I've extracted the kernel test to build for userspace, and it behaves
>>> the same way. See attached "stackinit.c".
>>>
>>> $ gcc-build/auto-var-init.4/installed/bin/gcc -O2 -Wall -o stackinit
>>> stackinit.c
>>> $ ./stackinit 2>&1 | grep failures:
>>> stackinit: failures: 23
>>> $ gcc-build/auto-var-init.4/installed/bin/gcc -O2 -Wall
>>> -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero -o stackinit stackinit.c
>>> stackinit.c: In function ‘__leaf_switch_none’:
>>> stackinit.c:326:26: warning: statement will never be executed
>>> [-Wswitch-unreachable]
>>> 326 | uint64_t var;
>>> | ^~~
>>> $ ./stackinit 2>&1 | grep failures:
>>> stackinit: failures: 6
>>>
>>> Same failures as seen in the kernel test (and an expected warning
>>> about the initialization that will never happen for a pre-case switch
>>> statement).
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (And as an aside, it seems like naming the test cases with some details
>>>>> about what is being tested in the filename would be nice -- it was
>>>>> a little weird having to dig through their numeric names to find the
>>>>> padding tests.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I will fix the testing names to more reflect the testing details.
>>>
>>> Great!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kees Cook
>>> <stackinit.c>
