HomePhabricator

[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part

Authored by lebedev.ri on Jul 30 2018, 11:58 AM.

Description

[clang][ubsan] Implicit Conversion Sanitizer - integer truncation - clang part

Summary:
C and C++ are interesting languages. They are statically typed, but weakly.
The implicit conversions are allowed. This is nice, allows to write code
while balancing between getting drowned in everything being convertible,
and nothing being convertible. As usual, this comes with a price:

unsigned char store = 0;

bool consume(unsigned int val);

void test(unsigned long val) {
  if (consume(val)) {
    // the 'val' is `unsigned long`, but `consume()` takes `unsigned int`.
    // If their bit widths are different on this platform, the implicit
    // truncation happens. And if that `unsigned long` had a value bigger
    // than UINT_MAX, then you may or may not have a bug.

    // Similarly, integer addition happens on `int`s, so `store` will
    // be promoted to an `int`, the sum calculated (0+768=768),
    // and the result demoted to `unsigned char`, and stored to `store`.
    // In this case, the `store` will still be 0. Again, not always intended.
    store = store + 768; // before addition, 'store' was promoted to int.
  }

  // But yes, sometimes this is intentional.
  // You can either make the conversion explicit
  (void)consume((unsigned int)val);
  // or mask the value so no bits will be *implicitly* lost.
  (void)consume((~((unsigned int)0)) & val);
}

Yes, there is a -Wconversion` diagnostic group, but first, it is kinda
noisy, since it warns on everything (unlike sanitizers, warning on an
actual issues), and second, there are cases where it does not warn.
So a Sanitizer is needed. I don't have any motivational numbers, but i know
i had this kind of problem 10-20 times, and it was never easy to track down.

The logic to detect whether an truncation has happened is pretty simple
if you think about it - https://godbolt.org/g/NEzXbb - basically, just
extend (using the new, not original!, signedness) the 'truncated' value
back to it's original width, and equality-compare it with the original value.

The most non-trivial thing here is the logic to detect whether this
ImplicitCastExpr AST node is actually an implicit conversion, or
part of an explicit cast. Because the explicit casts are modeled as an outer
ExplicitCastExpr with some ImplicitCastExpr's as direct children.
https://godbolt.org/g/eE1GkJ

Nowadays, we can just use the new part_of_explicit_cast flag, which is set
on all the implicitly-added ImplicitCastExpr's of an ExplicitCastExpr.
So if that flag is not set, then it is an actual implicit conversion.

As you may have noted, this isn't just named -fsanitize=implicit-integer-truncation.
There are potentially some more implicit conversions to be warned about.
Namely, implicit conversions that result in sign change; implicit conversion
between different floating point types, or between fp and an integer,
when again, that conversion is lossy.

One thing i know isn't handled is bitfields.

This is a clang part.
The compiler-rt part is D48959.

Fixes PR21530, PR37552, PR35409.
Partially fixes PR9821.
Fixes https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/940. (other than sign-changing implicit conversions)

Reviewers: rjmccall, rsmith, samsonov, pcc, vsk, eugenis, efriedma, kcc, erichkeane

Reviewed By: rsmith, vsk, erichkeane

Subscribers: erichkeane, klimek, #sanitizers, aaron.ballman, RKSimon, dtzWill, filcab, danielaustin, ygribov, dvyukov, milianw, mclow.lists, cfe-commits, regehr

Tags: #sanitizers

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48958

llvm-svn: 338288