6502/llvm-6502
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/c64scene-ar/llvm-6502.git synced 2024-09-30 04:56:49 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Make sure we don't combine a large displacement and a frame index in the same addressing mode on x86-64. It can overflow, leading to a crash/miscompile.

Browse Source 
<rdar://problem/9763308>



git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@135084 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Eli Friedman 2011-07-13 21:29:53 +00:00
parent 0d8dae292a
commit 2a01946de4
2 changed files with 45 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

33
lib/Target/X86/X86ISelDAGToDAG.cpp
View File

@ -548,17 +548,33 @@ void X86DAGToDAGISel::EmitFunctionEntryCode() {
EmitSpecialCodeForMain(MF->begin(), MF->getFrameInfo());
}
static bool isDispSafeForFrameIndex(int64_t Val) {
// On 64-bit platforms, we can run into an issue where a frame index
// includes a displacement that, when added to the explicit displacement,
// will overflow the displacement field. Assuming that the frame index
// displacement fits into a 31-bit integer (which is only slightly more
// aggressive than the current fundamental assumption that it fits into
// a 32-bit integer), a 31-bit disp should always be safe.
return isInt<31>(Val);
}
bool X86DAGToDAGISel::FoldOffsetIntoAddress(uint64_t Offset,
X86ISelAddressMode &AM) {
int64_t Val = AM.Disp + Offset;
CodeModel::Model M = TM.getCodeModel();
if (!Subtarget->is64Bit() ||
X86::isOffsetSuitableForCodeModel(Val, M,
AM.hasSymbolicDisplacement())) {
AM.Disp = Val;
return false;
if (Subtarget->is64Bit()) {
if (!X86::isOffsetSuitableForCodeModel(Val, M,
AM.hasSymbolicDisplacement()))
return true;
// In addition to the checks required for a register base, check that
// we do not try to use an unsafe Disp with a frame index.
if (AM.BaseType == X86ISelAddressMode::FrameIndexBase &&
!isDispSafeForFrameIndex(Val))
return true;
}
return true;
AM.Disp = Val;
return false;
}
bool X86DAGToDAGISel::MatchLoadInAddress(LoadSDNode *N, X86ISelAddressMode &AM){
@ -751,8 +767,9 @@ bool X86DAGToDAGISel::MatchAddressRecursively(SDValue N, X86ISelAddressMode &AM,
break;
case ISD::FrameIndex:
if (AM.BaseType == X86ISelAddressMode::RegBase
&& AM.Base_Reg.getNode() == 0) {
if (AM.BaseType == X86ISelAddressMode::RegBase &&
AM.Base_Reg.getNode() == 0 &&
(!Subtarget->is64Bit() || isDispSafeForFrameIndex(AM.Disp))) {
AM.BaseType = X86ISelAddressMode::FrameIndexBase;
AM.Base_FrameIndex = cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(N)->getIndex();
return false;

20
test/CodeGen/X86/2011-07-13-BadFrameIndexDisplacement.ll Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
; RUN: llc -march=x86-64 < %s -disable-fp-elim | FileCheck %s
; This test is checking that we don't crash and we don't incorrectly fold
; a large displacement and a frame index into a single lea.
; <rdar://problem/9763308>
declare void @bar([39 x i8]*)
define i32 @f(i64 %a, i64 %b) nounwind readnone {
entry:
%stack_main = alloca [39 x i8]
call void @bar([39 x i8]* %stack_main)
%tmp6 = add i64 %a, -2147483647
%.sum = add i64 %tmp6, %b
%tmp8 = getelementptr inbounds [39 x i8]* %stack_main, i64 0, i64 %.sum
%tmp9 = load i8* %tmp8, align 1
%tmp10 = sext i8 %tmp9 to i32
ret i32 %tmp10
}
; CHECK: f:
; CHECK: movsbl -2147483647