The existing BTI placement pass avoids inserting "BTI c" when the
function has local linkage and is only directly called. However,
even in this case, there is a (small) chance that the linker later
adds a hunk with an indirect call to the function, e.g. if the
function is placed in a separate section and moved far away from
its callers. Make sure to add BTI for these functions too.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D99417
PAC/BTI-related codegen in the AArch64 backend is controlled by a set
of LLVM IR function attributes, added to the function by Clang, based
on command-line options and GCC-style function attributes. However,
functions, generated in the LLVM middle end (for example,
asan.module.ctor or __llvm_gcov_write_out) do not get any attributes
and the backend incorrectly does not do any PAC/BTI code generation.
This patch record the default state of PAC/BTI codegen in a set of
LLVM IR module-level attributes, based on command-line options:
* "sign-return-address", with non-zero value means generate code to
sign return addresses (PAC-RET), zero value means disable PAC-RET.
* "sign-return-address-all", with non-zero value means enable PAC-RET
for all functions, zero value means enable PAC-RET only for
functions, which spill LR.
* "sign-return-address-with-bkey", with non-zero value means use B-key
for signing, zero value mean use A-key.
This set of attributes are always added for AArch64 targets (as
opposed, for example, to interpreting a missing attribute as having a
value 0) in order to be able to check for conflicts when combining
module attributed during LTO.
Module-level attributes are overridden by function level attributes.
All the decision making about whether to not to generate PAC and/or
BTI code is factored out into AArch64FunctionInfo, there shouldn't be
any places left, other than AArch64FunctionInfo, which directly
examine PAC/BTI attributes, except AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp, which
is/will-be handled by a separate patch.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85649
Follow-up for D74006.
When the integrated assembler is used, we use SHF_LINK_ORDER. The
linked-to symbol is part of ELFSectionKey, thus we can omit the unique
ID.
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44775
This rule has been implemented by GNU as https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2020-02/msg00028.html (binutils >= 2.35)
It allows us to simplify
```
.section .foo,"o",foo,unique,0
.section .foo,"o",bar,unique,1 # different section
```
to
```
.section .foo,"o",foo
.section .foo,"o",bar # different section
```
We consider the two `.foo` different even if the linked-to symbols foo and bar
are defined in the same section. This is a deliberate choice so that we don't
need to know the section where foo and bar are defined beforehand.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74006
Similar to D73680 (AArch64 BTI).
A local linkage function whose address is not taken does not need ENDBR32/ENDBR64. Placing the patch label after ENDBR32/ENDBR64 has the advantage that code does not need to differentiate whether the function has an initial ENDBR.
Also, add 32-bit tests and test that .cfi_startproc is at the function
entry. The line information has a general implementation and is tested
by AArch64/patchable-function-entry-empty.mir
Reviewed By: nickdesaulniers
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73760
Summary:
For -fpatchable-function-entry=N,0 -mbranch-protection=bti, after
9a24488cb67a90f889529987275c5e411ce01dda, we place the NOP sled after
the initial BTI.
```
.Lfunc_begin0:
bti c
nop
nop
.section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,f,unique,0
.p2align 3
.xword .Lfunc_begin0
```
This patch adds a label after the initial BTI and changes the __patchable_function_entries entry to reference the label:
```
.Lfunc_begin0:
bti c
.Lpatch0:
nop
nop
.section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,f,unique,0
.p2align 3
.xword .Lpatch0
```
This placement is compatible with the resolution in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424 .
A local linkage function whose address is not taken does not need a BTI.
Placing the patch label after BTI has the advantage that code does not
need to differentiate whether the function has an initial BTI.
Reviewers: mrutland, nickdesaulniers, nsz, ostannard
Subscribers: kristof.beyls, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73680
Similar to the function attribute `prefix` (prefix data),
"patchable-function-prefix" inserts data (M NOPs) before the function
entry label.
-fpatchable-function-entry=2,1 (1 NOP before entry, 1 NOP after entry)
will look like:
```
.type foo,@function
.Ltmp0: # @foo
nop
foo:
.Lfunc_begin0:
# optional `bti c` (AArch64 Branch Target Identification) or
# `endbr64` (Intel Indirect Branch Tracking)
nop
.section __patchable_function_entries,"awo",@progbits,get,unique,0
.p2align 3
.quad .Ltmp0
```
-fpatchable-function-entry=N,0 + -mbranch-protection=bti/-fcf-protection=branch has two reasonable
placements (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg01185.html):
```
(a) (b)
func: func:
.Ltmp0: bti c
bti c .Ltmp0:
nop nop
```
(a) needs no additional code. If the consensus is to go for (b), we will
need more code in AArch64BranchTargets.cpp / X86IndirectBranchTracking.cpp .
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D73070
This intention is to move patchable-function before aarch64-branch-targets
(configured in AArch64PassConfig::addPreEmitPass) so that we emit BTI before NOPs
(see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424).
This also allows addPreEmitPass() passes to know the precise instruction sizes if they want.
Tried x86-64 Debug/Release builds of ccls with -fxray-instrument -fxray-instruction-threshold=1.
No output difference with this commit and the previous commit.
