RISC-V: Fix incorrect code of touching inaccessible memory address
Checks
Commit Message
From: Juzhe-Zhong <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
For VLMAX situation, rtx len = ops[m_op_num] is incorrect since
the last element the ops array should be ops[m_op_num - 1];
I notice this issue when I am debugging code.
This is a code bug even though the following codes will hide this issue.
We still should need this minor fix.
Built && Regression PASSed.
Ok for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* config/riscv/riscv-v.cc: Fix bug of touching inaccessible memory.
---
gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Comments
I am a little hesitant about that, since I feel the vl and normal op
should be put in separately, otherwise the means of m_op_num is kind
of unclear, we have comments there but I think it's not ideal since it
is really context sensitive and hard to determine.
And I suspect gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]); is not too useful since it
might just be out of range access if we forgot to pass the vl
operands.
I am thinking we might need to introduce something like llvm::ArrayRef
to have a better sanity check, e.g. check the length of ops.
One possible solution is just using std::vector can achieve the same
purpose too, but come with more cost.
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:57 AM <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> wrote:
>
> From: Juzhe-Zhong <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
>
> For VLMAX situation, rtx len = ops[m_op_num] is incorrect since
> the last element the ops array should be ops[m_op_num - 1];
>
> I notice this issue when I am debugging code.
> This is a code bug even though the following codes will hide this issue.
> We still should need this minor fix.
>
> Built && Regression PASSed.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/riscv/riscv-v.cc: Fix bug of touching inaccessible memory.
>
> ---
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> index fa61a850a22..a0992773644 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> @@ -169,7 +169,11 @@ public:
>
> if (m_needs_avl_p)
> {
> - rtx len = ops[m_op_num];
> + /* The variable "m_op_num" means the real operation operands except VL
> + operand. For VLMAX patterns (no VL operand), the last operand is
> + ops[m_op_num -1]. Wheras for non-VLMAX patterns, the last operand is
> + VL operand which is ops[m_op_num]. */
> + rtx len = NULL_RTX;
> if (m_vlmax_p)
> {
> if (const_vlmax_p (m_dest_mode))
> @@ -185,6 +189,20 @@ public:
> len = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
> emit_vlmax_vsetvl (m_dest_mode, len);
> }
> + else
> + {
> + /* According to LRA mov pattern in vector.md. The VL operand is
> + always the last operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> + }
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + /* For non-VLMAX patterns. The VL operand is always the last
> + * operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> }
> add_input_operand (len, Pmode);
> }
> --
> 2.36.3
>
Thanks. I fix it by separating VL and normal operand.
V2 patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/619356.html
Does it look more reasonable to you?
Just finished the building test && regression.
Thanks.
juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai
From: Kito Cheng
Date: 2023-05-24 10:10
To: juzhe.zhong
CC: gcc-patches; kito.cheng; palmer; palmer; jeffreyalaw; rdapp.gcc
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Fix incorrect code of touching inaccessible memory address
I am a little hesitant about that, since I feel the vl and normal op
should be put in separately, otherwise the means of m_op_num is kind
of unclear, we have comments there but I think it's not ideal since it
is really context sensitive and hard to determine.
And I suspect gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]); is not too useful since it
might just be out of range access if we forgot to pass the vl
operands.
I am thinking we might need to introduce something like llvm::ArrayRef
to have a better sanity check, e.g. check the length of ops.
One possible solution is just using std::vector can achieve the same
purpose too, but come with more cost.
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:57 AM <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai> wrote:
>
> From: Juzhe-Zhong <juzhe.zhong@rivai.ai>
>
> For VLMAX situation, rtx len = ops[m_op_num] is incorrect since
> the last element the ops array should be ops[m_op_num - 1];
>
> I notice this issue when I am debugging code.
> This is a code bug even though the following codes will hide this issue.
> We still should need this minor fix.
>
> Built && Regression PASSed.
>
> Ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/riscv/riscv-v.cc: Fix bug of touching inaccessible memory.
>
> ---
> gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> index fa61a850a22..a0992773644 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> +++ b/gcc/config/riscv/riscv-v.cc
> @@ -169,7 +169,11 @@ public:
>
> if (m_needs_avl_p)
> {
> - rtx len = ops[m_op_num];
> + /* The variable "m_op_num" means the real operation operands except VL
> + operand. For VLMAX patterns (no VL operand), the last operand is
> + ops[m_op_num -1]. Wheras for non-VLMAX patterns, the last operand is
> + VL operand which is ops[m_op_num]. */
> + rtx len = NULL_RTX;
> if (m_vlmax_p)
> {
> if (const_vlmax_p (m_dest_mode))
> @@ -185,6 +189,20 @@ public:
> len = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
> emit_vlmax_vsetvl (m_dest_mode, len);
> }
> + else
> + {
> + /* According to LRA mov pattern in vector.md. The VL operand is
> + always the last operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> + }
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + /* For non-VLMAX patterns. The VL operand is always the last
> + * operand. */
> + gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
> + len = ops[m_op_num];
> }
> add_input_operand (len, Pmode);
> }
> --
> 2.36.3
>
@@ -169,7 +169,11 @@ public:
if (m_needs_avl_p)
{
- rtx len = ops[m_op_num];
+ /* The variable "m_op_num" means the real operation operands except VL
+ operand. For VLMAX patterns (no VL operand), the last operand is
+ ops[m_op_num -1]. Wheras for non-VLMAX patterns, the last operand is
+ VL operand which is ops[m_op_num]. */
+ rtx len = NULL_RTX;
if (m_vlmax_p)
{
if (const_vlmax_p (m_dest_mode))
@@ -185,6 +189,20 @@ public:
len = gen_reg_rtx (Pmode);
emit_vlmax_vsetvl (m_dest_mode, len);
}
+ else
+ {
+ /* According to LRA mov pattern in vector.md. The VL operand is
+ always the last operand. */
+ gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
+ len = ops[m_op_num];
+ }
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* For non-VLMAX patterns. The VL operand is always the last
+ * operand. */
+ gcc_assert (ops[m_op_num]);
+ len = ops[m_op_num];
}
add_input_operand (len, Pmode);
}