HomePhabricator

[GVN] Update BlockRPONumber prior to use.

Description

[GVN] Update BlockRPONumber prior to use.

Summary:
The original patch addressed the use of BlockRPONumber by forcing a sequence point when accessing that map in a conditional. In short we found cases where that map was being accessed with blocks that had not yet been added to that structure. For context, I've kept the wall of text below, to what we are trying to fix, by always ensuring a updated BlockRPONumber.

Backstory

I was investigating an ICE (segfault accessing a DenseMap item). This failure happened non-deterministically, with no apparent reason and only on a Windows build of LLVM (from October 2018).

After looking into the crashes (multiple core files) and running DynamoRio, the cores and DynamoRio (DR) log pointed to the same code in GVN::performScalarPRE(). The values in the map are unsigned integers, the keys are llvm::BasicBlock*. Our test case that triggered this warning and periodic crash is rather involved. But the problematic line looks to be:

GVN.cpp: Line 2197

if (BlockRPONumber[P] >= BlockRPONumber[CurrentBlock] &&

To test things out, I cooked up a patch that accessed the items in the map outside of the condition, by forcing a sequence point between accesses. DynamoRio stopped warning of the issue, and the test didn't seem to crash after 1000+ runs.

My investigation was on an older version of LLVM, (source from October this year). What it looks like was occurring is the following, and the assembly from the latest pull of llvm in December seems to confirm this might still be an issue; however, I have not witnessed the crash on more recent builds. Of course the asm in question is generated from the host compiler on that Windows box (not clang), but it hints that we might want to consider how we access the BlockRPONumber map in this conditional (line 2197, listed above). In any case, I don't think the host compiler is wrong, rather I think it is pointing out a possibly latent bug in llvm.

  1. There is no sequence point for the >= operation.
  1. A call to a DenseMapBase::operator[] can have the side effect of the map reallocating a larger store (more Buckets, via a call to DenseMap::grow).
  1. It seems perfectly legal for a host compiler to generate assembly that stores the result of a call to operator[] on the stack (that's what my host compile of GVN.cpp is doing) . A second call to operator[] might encourage the map to 'grow' thus making any pointers to the map's store invalid. The >= compares the first and second values. If the first happens to be a pointer produced from operator[], it could be invalid when dereferenced at the time of comparison.

The assembly generated from the Window's host compiler does show the result of the first access to the map via operator[] produces a pointer to an unsigned int. And that pointer is being stored on the stack. If a second call to the map (which does occur) causes the map to grow, that address (on the stack) is now invalid.

Reviewers: t.p.northover, efriedma

Reviewed By: efriedma

Subscribers: efriedma, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55974

Details

Committed
mattdJan 10 2019, 11:56 AM
Reviewer
efriedma
Differential Revision
D55974: [GVN] Update BlockRPONumber prior to use.
Parents
rL350879: Use MemorySSA in LICM to do sinking and hoisting.
Branches
Unknown
Tags
Unknown