| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Trim and tidy includes in `rustc_llvm`
These includes tend to accumulate over time, and are usually only removed when something breaks in a new LLVM version, so it's nice to clean them up manually once in a while.
General strategy used for this PR:
- Remove all includes from `LLVMWrapper.h` that aren't needed by the header itself, transplanting them to individual source files as necessary.
- For each source file, temporarily remove each include if doing so doesn't cause a compile error.
- If a “required” include looks like it shouldn't be needed, try replacing it with its sub-includes, then trim that list.
- After doing all of the above, go back and re-add any removed include if the file does actually use things defined in that header, even if the header happens to also be included by something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
llvm/llvm-project@2ae968a0d9fb61606b020e898d884c82dd0ed8b5
Just a simple header move.
@rustbot label: +llvm-main
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppress warnings in LLVM wrapper when targeting MSVC
The LLVM header files generate many warnings when compiled using MSVC. This makes it difficult to work on the LLVM wrapper code, because the warnings and errors that are relevant to local edits are obscured by the hundreds of lines of warnings from the LLVM Headers.
|
|
This is intended to be used for Linux kernel RETHUNK builds.
With this commit (optionally backported to Rust 1.73.0), plus a
patched Linux kernel to pass the flag, I get a RETHUNK build with
Rust enabled that is `objtool`-warning-free and is able to boot in
QEMU and load a sample Rust kernel module.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Includes of `include/llvm/Support/Host.h` now emit a deprecated warning:
`warning: This header is deprecated, please use llvm/TargetParser/Host.h`.
|
|
|
|
Adds support for LLVM [SafeStack] which provides backward edge control
flow protection by separating the stack into two parts: data which is
only accessed in provable safe ways is allocated on the normal stack
(the "safe stack") and all other data is placed in a separate allocation
(the "unsafe stack").
SafeStack support is enabled by passing `-Zsanitizer=safestack`.
[SafeStack]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SafeStack.html
|
|
|
|
LLVM 16 has moved Triple.h from ADT and into TargetParser
|
|
|
|
Fixes a warning:
warning: llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp:159:11: warning: enumeration values 'AllocatedPointer' and 'AllocAlign' not handled in switch [-Wswitch]
warning: switch (Kind) {
warning: ^
Which was fall out from 130a1df71ea73ab9d66d3cb8fc9cdb43155d514b.
|
|
This obviates the patch that teaches LLVM internals about
_rust_{re,de}alloc functions by putting annotations directly in the IR
for the optimizer.
The sole test change is required to anchor FileCheck to the body of the
`box_uninitialized` method, so it doesn't see the `allocalign` on
`__rust_alloc` and get mad about the string `alloca` showing up. Since I
was there anyway, I added some checks on the attributes to prove the
right attributes got set.
While we're here, we also emit allocator attributes on
__rust_alloc_zeroed. This should allow LLVM to perform more
optimizations for zeroed blocks, and probably fixes #90032. [This
comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24194#issuecomment-308791157)
mentions "weird UB-like behaviour with bitvec iterators in
rustc_data_structures" so we may need to back this change out if things
go wrong.
The new test cases require LLVM 15, so we copy them into LLVM
14-supporting versions, which we can delete when we drop LLVM 14.
|
|
Adds support for the LLVM ShadowCallStack sanitizer.
|
|
We can apply nocf_check as a hack for now.
|
|
Adds support for the LLVM MemTagSanitizer.
|
|
This doesn't handle `char` because it's a bit awkward to distinguish it
from u32 at this point in codegen.
Note that for some types (like `&Struct` and `&mut Struct`),
we already apply `dereferenceable`, which implies `noundef`,
so the IR does not change.
|
|
LLVM has built-in heuristics for adding stack canaries to functions. These
heuristics can be selected with LLVM function attributes. This patch adds a
rustc option `-Z stack-protector={none,basic,strong,all}` which controls the use
of these attributes. This gives rustc the same stack smash protection support as
clang offers through options `-fno-stack-protector`, `-fstack-protector`,
`-fstack-protector-strong`, and `-fstack-protector-all`. The protection this can
offer is demonstrated in test/ui/abi/stack-protector.rs. This fills a gap in the
current list of rustc exploit
mitigations (https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/exploit-mitigations.html),
originally discussed in #15179.
Stack smash protection adds runtime overhead and is therefore still off by
default, but now users have the option to trade performance for security as they
see fit. An example use case is adding Rust code in an existing C/C++ code base
compiled with stack smash protection. Without the ability to add stack smash
protection to the Rust code, the code base artifacts could be exploitable in
ways not possible if the code base remained pure C/C++.
Stack smash protection support is present in LLVM for almost all the current
tier 1/tier 2 targets: see
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs. The one
exception is nvptx64-nvidia-cuda. This patch follows clang's example, and adds a
warning message printed if stack smash protection is used with this target (see
test/ui/stack-protector/warn-stack-protector-unsupported.rs). Support for tier 3
targets has not been checked.
Since the heuristics are applied at the LLVM level, the heuristics are expected
to add stack smash protection to a fraction of functions comparable to C/C++.
Some experiments demonstrating how Rust code is affected by the different
heuristics can be found in
test/assembly/stack-protector/stack-protector-heuristics-effect.rs. There is
potential for better heuristics using Rust-specific safety information. For
example it might be reasonable to skip stack smash protection in functions which
transitively only use safe Rust code, or which uses only a subset of functions
the user declares safe (such as anything under `std.*`). Such alternative
heuristics could be added at a later point.
LLVM also offers a "safestack" sanitizer as an alternative way to guard against
stack smashing (see #26612). This could possibly also be included as a
stack-protection heuristic. An alternative is to add it as a sanitizer (#39699).
This is what clang does: safestack is exposed with option
`-fsanitize=safe-stack`.
The options are only supported by the LLVM backend, but as with other codegen
options it is visible in the main codegen option help menu. The heuristic names
"basic", "strong", and "all" are hopefully sufficiently generic to be usable in
other backends as well.
Reviewed-by: Nikita Popov <nikic@php.net>
Extra commits during review:
- [address-review] make the stack-protector option unstable
- [address-review] reduce detail level of stack-protector option help text
- [address-review] correct grammar in comment
- [address-review] use compiler flag to avoid merging functions in test
- [address-review] specify min LLVM version in fortanix stack-protector test
Only for Fortanix test, since this target specifically requests the
`--x86-experimental-lvi-inline-asm-hardening` flag.
- [address-review] specify required LLVM components in stack-protector tests
- move stack protector option enum closer to other similar option enums
- rustc_interface/tests: sort debug option list in tracking hash test
- add an explicit `none` stack-protector option
Revert "set LLVM requirements for all stack protector support test revisions"
This reverts commit a49b74f92a4e7d701d6f6cf63d207a8aff2e0f68.
|
|
No functional changes intended.
The LLVM commit
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/89b57061f7b769e9ea9bf6ed686e284f3e55affe
moved TargetRegistry.(h|cpp) from Support to MC.
This adapts RustWrapper accordingly.
|
|
THis came up in the review of #83425: it's hard to imagine a use of
LLVM_VERSION_LE() or LLVM_VERSION_EQ() that's not asking for trouble
when a point release gets created, so let's just discard them to prevent
the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
