[IR] Add getDataLayout() helpers to Function and GlobalValue (#96919)

Similar to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96902, this adds
`getDataLayout()` helpers to Function and GlobalValue, re

[IR] Add getDataLayout() helpers to Function and GlobalValue (#96919)

Similar to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96902, this adds
`getDataLayout()` helpers to Function and GlobalValue, replacing the
current `getParent()->getDataLayout()` pattern.

show more ...

[NFC][RemoveDIs] Use iterators for insertion at various call-sites (#84736)

These are the last remaining "trivial" changes to passes that use
Instruction pointers for insertion. All of this should

[NFC][RemoveDIs] Use iterators for insertion at various call-sites (#84736)

These are the last remaining "trivial" changes to passes that use
Instruction pointers for insertion. All of this should be NFC, it's just
changing the spelling of how we identify a position.

In one or two locations, I'm also switching uses of getNextNode etc to
using std::next with iterators. This too should be NFC.

---------

Merged by: Stephen Tozer <stephen.tozer@sony.com>

show more ...

[CodeGen] Port `IndirectBrExpand` to new pass manager (#75287)

[CodeGen] Use std::optional in IndirectBrExpandPass.cpp (NFC)

This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-has

[CodeGen] Use std::optional in IndirectBrExpandPass.cpp (NFC)

This is part of an effort to migrate from llvm::Optional to
std::optional:

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/deprecating-llvm-optional-x-hasvalue-getvalue-getvalueor/63716

show more ...

IndirectBrExpandPass - remove unused DL from lambda capture. NFC.

Oddly I wasn't seeing an unused variable warning - this came up in a coverity remark about large copy by values!

Cleanup codegen includes

This is a (fixed) recommit of https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169

after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-in

Cleanup codegen includes

This is a (fixed) recommit of https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169

after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844

Discourse thread: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/include-what-you-use-include-cleanup
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121681

show more ...

Revert "Cleanup codegen includes"

This reverts commit 7f230feeeac8a67b335f52bd2e900a05c6098f20.
Breaks CodeGenCUDA/link-device-bitcode.cu in check-clang,
and many LLVM tests, see comments on https:/

Revert "Cleanup codegen includes"

This reverts commit 7f230feeeac8a67b335f52bd2e900a05c6098f20.
Breaks CodeGenCUDA/link-device-bitcode.cu in check-clang,
and many LLVM tests, see comments on https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169

show more ...

Cleanup codegen includes

after: 1061034926
before: 1063332844

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D121169

Use a deterministic order when updating the DominatorTree

This solves a problem with non-deterministic output from opt due
to not performing dominator tree updates in a deterministic order.

The pro

Use a deterministic order when updating the DominatorTree

This solves a problem with non-deterministic output from opt due
to not performing dominator tree updates in a deterministic order.

The problem that was analysed indicated that JumpThreading was using
the DomTreeUpdater via llvm::MergeBasicBlockIntoOnlyPred. When
preparing the list of updates to send to DomTreeUpdater::applyUpdates
we iterated over a SmallPtrSet, which didn't give a well-defined
order of updates to perform.

The added domtree-updates.ll test case is an example that would
result in non-deterministic printouts of the domtree. Semantically
those domtree:s are equivalent, but it show the fact that when we
use the domtree iterator the order in which nodes are visited depend
on the order in which dominator tree updates are performed.

Since some passes (at least EarlyCSE) are iterating over nodes in the
dominator tree in a similar fashion as the domtree printer, then the
order in which transforms are applied by such passes, transitively,
also depend on the order in which dominator tree updates are
performed. And taking EarlyCSE as an example the end result could be
different depending on in which order the transforms are applied.

Reviewed By: nikic, kuhar

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110292

show more ...

[CodeGen] IndirectBrExpandPass: preserve Dominator Tree, if available

This fully de-pessimizes the common case of no indirectbr's,
(where we don't actually need to do anything to preserve domtree)
a

[CodeGen] IndirectBrExpandPass: preserve Dominator Tree, if available

This fully de-pessimizes the common case of no indirectbr's,
(where we don't actually need to do anything to preserve domtree)
and avoids domtree recomputation in the case there were indirectbr's.

Note that two indirectbr's could have a common successor, and not all
successors of an indirectbr's are meant to survive the expansion.

Though, the code assumes that an indirectbr's doesn't have
duplicate successors, those *should* have been deduplicated
by simplifycfg or something already.

show more ...

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of reco

Sink all InitializePasses.h includes

This file lists every pass in LLVM, and is included by Pass.h, which is
very popular. Every time we add, remove, or rename a pass in LLVM, it
caused lots of recompilation.

I found this fact by looking at this table, which is sorted by the
number of times a file was changed over the last 100,000 git commits
multiplied by the number of object files that depend on it in the
current checkout:
recompiles touches affected_files header
342380 95 3604 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h
314730 234 1345 llvm/include/llvm/InitializePasses.h
307036 118 2602 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
213049 59 3611 llvm/include/llvm/Support/MathExtras.h
170422 47 3626 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Compiler.h
162225 45 3605 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Optional.h
158319 63 2513 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/Triple.h
140322 39 3598 llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h
137647 59 2333 llvm/include/llvm/Support/Error.h
131619 73 1803 llvm/include/llvm/Support/FileSystem.h

Before this change, touching InitializePasses.h would cause 1345 files
to recompile. After this change, touching it only causes 550 compiles in
an incremental rebuild.

Reviewers: bkramer, asbirlea, bollu, jdoerfert

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D70211

show more ...

Implementation of asm-goto support in LLVM

This patch accompanies the RFC posted here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/127239.html

This patch adds a new CallBr IR instruction

Implementation of asm-goto support in LLVM

This patch accompanies the RFC posted here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-October/127239.html

This patch adds a new CallBr IR instruction to support asm-goto
inline assembly like gcc as used by the linux kernel. This
instruction is both a call instruction and a terminator
instruction with multiple successors. Only inline assembly
usage is supported today.

This also adds a new INLINEASM_BR opcode to SelectionDAG and
MachineIR to represent an INLINEASM block that is also
considered a terminator instruction.

There will likely be more bug fixes and optimizations to follow
this, but we felt it had reached a point where we would like to
switch to an incremental development model.

Patch by Craig Topper, Alexander Ivchenko, Mikhail Dvoretckii

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53765

llvm-svn: 353563

show more ...

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the ne

Update the file headers across all of the LLVM projects in the monorepo
to reflect the new license.

We understand that people may be surprised that we're moving the header
entirely to discuss the new license. We checked this carefully with the
Foundation's lawyer and we believe this is the correct approach.

Essentially, all code in the project is now made available by the LLVM
project under our new license, so you will see that the license headers
include that license only. Some of our contributors have contributed
code under our old license, and accordingly, we have retained a copy of
our old license notice in the top-level files in each project and
repository.

llvm-svn: 351636

show more ...

Introduce the "retpoline" x86 mitigation technique for variant #2 of the speculative execution vulnerabilities disclosed today, specifically identified by CVE-2017-5715, "Branch Target Injection", an

Introduce the "retpoline" x86 mitigation technique for variant #2 of the speculative execution vulnerabilities disclosed today, specifically identified by CVE-2017-5715, "Branch Target Injection", and is one of the two halves to Spectre..

Summary:
First, we need to explain the core of the vulnerability. Note that this
is a very incomplete description, please see the Project Zero blog post
for details:
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html

The basis for branch target injection is to direct speculative execution
of the processor to some "gadget" of executable code by poisoning the
prediction of indirect branches with the address of that gadget. The
gadget in turn contains an operation that provides a side channel for
reading data. Most commonly, this will look like a load of secret data
followed by a branch on the loaded value and then a load of some
predictable cache line. The attacker then uses timing of the processors
cache to determine which direction the branch took *in the speculative
execution*, and in turn what one bit of the loaded value was. Due to the
nature of these timing side channels and the branch predictor on Intel
processors, this allows an attacker to leak data only accessible to
a privileged domain (like the kernel) back into an unprivileged domain.

The goal is simple: avoid generating code which contains an indirect
branch that could have its prediction poisoned by an attacker. In many
cases, the compiler can simply use directed conditional branches and
a small search tree. LLVM already has support for lowering switches in
this way and the first step of this patch is to disable jump-table
lowering of switches and introduce a pass to rewrite explicit indirectbr
sequences into a switch over integers.

However, there is no fully general alternative to indirect calls. We
introduce a new construct we call a "retpoline" to implement indirect
calls in a non-speculatable way. It can be thought of loosely as
a trampoline for indirect calls which uses the RET instruction on x86.
Further, we arrange for a specific call->ret sequence which ensures the
processor predicts the return to go to a controlled, known location. The
retpoline then "smashes" the return address pushed onto the stack by the
call with the desired target of the original indirect call. The result
is a predicted return to the next instruction after a call (which can be
used to trap speculative execution within an infinite loop) and an
actual indirect branch to an arbitrary address.

On 64-bit x86 ABIs, this is especially easily done in the compiler by
using a guaranteed scratch register to pass the target into this device.
For 32-bit ABIs there isn't a guaranteed scratch register and so several
different retpoline variants are introduced to use a scratch register if
one is available in the calling convention and to otherwise use direct
stack push/pop sequences to pass the target address.

This "retpoline" mitigation is fully described in the following blog
post: https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/7625886

We also support a target feature that disables emission of the retpoline
thunk by the compiler to allow for custom thunks if users want them.
These are particularly useful in environments like kernels that
routinely do hot-patching on boot and want to hot-patch their thunk to
different code sequences. They can write this custom thunk and use
`-mretpoline-external-thunk` *in addition* to `-mretpoline`. In this
case, on x86-64 thu thunk names must be:
```
__llvm_external_retpoline_r11
```
or on 32-bit:
```
__llvm_external_retpoline_eax
__llvm_external_retpoline_ecx
__llvm_external_retpoline_edx
__llvm_external_retpoline_push
```
And the target of the retpoline is passed in the named register, or in
the case of the `push` suffix on the top of the stack via a `pushl`
instruction.

There is one other important source of indirect branches in x86 ELF
binaries: the PLT. These patches also include support for LLD to
generate PLT entries that perform a retpoline-style indirection.

The only other indirect branches remaining that we are aware of are from
precompiled runtimes (such as crt0.o and similar). The ones we have
found are not really attackable, and so we have not focused on them
here, but eventually these runtimes should also be replicated for
retpoline-ed configurations for completeness.

For kernels or other freestanding or fully static executables, the
compiler switch `-mretpoline` is sufficient to fully mitigate this
particular attack. For dynamic executables, you must compile *all*
libraries with `-mretpoline` and additionally link the dynamic
executable and all shared libraries with LLD and pass `-z retpolineplt`
(or use similar functionality from some other linker). We strongly
recommend also using `-z now` as non-lazy binding allows the
retpoline-mitigated PLT to be substantially smaller.

When manually apply similar transformations to `-mretpoline` to the
Linux kernel we observed very small performance hits to applications
running typical workloads, and relatively minor hits (approximately 2%)
even for extremely syscall-heavy applications. This is largely due to
the small number of indirect branches that occur in performance
sensitive paths of the kernel.

When using these patches on statically linked applications, especially
C++ applications, you should expect to see a much more dramatic
performance hit. For microbenchmarks that are switch, indirect-, or
virtual-call heavy we have seen overheads ranging from 10% to 50%.

However, real-world workloads exhibit substantially lower performance
impact. Notably, techniques such as PGO and ThinLTO dramatically reduce
the impact of hot indirect calls (by speculatively promoting them to
direct calls) and allow optimized search trees to be used to lower
switches. If you need to deploy these techniques in C++ applications, we
*strongly* recommend that you ensure all hot call targets are statically
linked (avoiding PLT indirection) and use both PGO and ThinLTO. Well
tuned servers using all of these techniques saw 5% - 10% overhead from
the use of retpoline.

We will add detailed documentation covering these components in
subsequent patches, but wanted to make the core functionality available
as soon as possible. Happy for more code review, but we'd really like to
get these patches landed and backported ASAP for obvious reasons. We're
planning to backport this to both 6.0 and 5.0 release streams and get
a 5.0 release with just this cherry picked ASAP for distros and vendors.

This patch is the work of a number of people over the past month: Eric, Reid,
Rui, and myself. I'm mailing it out as a single commit due to the time
sensitive nature of landing this and the need to backport it. Huge thanks to
everyone who helped out here, and everyone at Intel who helped out in
discussions about how to craft this. Also, credit goes to Paul Turner (at
Google, but not an LLVM contributor) for much of the underlying retpoline
design.

Reviewers: echristo, rnk, ruiu, craig.topper, DavidKreitzer

Subscribers: sanjoy, emaste, mcrosier, mgorny, mehdi_amini, hiraditya, llvm-commits

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41723

llvm-svn: 323155

show more ...