[LLVMdev] SAFECode Source Code Released
edwintorok at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 14:05:21 CST 2009
On 2009-11-16 21:04, John Criswell wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>> I applied the attached patch to make it compile on my box (Debian
>> x86_64), only to find out that x86_64 is not supported :(
>> This architecture is not supported by the pool allocator!
> Thanks for the patch. What options do I give to the patch command to
> apply it to the source code?
It was generated by svn diff, so patch -p0 should apply it. I only fixed
the obvious compiler warnings about pointer size, I don't know if there
are any more assumptions
that sizeof(void*) == 4 in the code.
> Although there's no documentation about contributions to SAFECode as
> of yet, I'd like to follow the same policy that LLVM uses (notably
> that the copyright of contributions is passed to the University of
> Illinois). Is this acceptable to you?
I don't think that a few lines of changes are copyrightable, but sure
> We haven't regularly tested SAFECode and Automatic Pool Allocation on
> 64 bit architectures, so while it may work, we can't say for certain
> that it will.
> This particular error is caused by the fact that the run-time does not
> know which allocator is best for allocating page-aligned sections of
> memory. If you modify getPages() in
> runtime/BitmapPoolAllocator/PageManager.cpp to use mmap(),
> posix_memalign(), or valloc(), then it will fix this error and allow
> you to continue experimenting with Poolalloc/SAFECode in 64-bit mode.
Why is that dependent on the architecture, and not the OS? mmap always
allocates page-aligned memory AFAIK, and its widely available (except
> Eventually, we should set up something in the configure script to find
> a usable default for this function. This would be a simple autoconf
> change; it just hasn't been high on the priority list.
>> I turned off Werror too because I was getting lots of aliasing violation
>> warnings (with g++ 4.3.4).
>> There are some "cast pointer to integer of different size" warnings, but
>> they're all in SVA, and thats the kernel stuff that has nothing to do
>> with safecode right?
> Which code are you referring to? I don't believe any of the SVA
> specific code is compiled by default in the mainline SAFECode tree.
The SVA runtime, see the buildlog I sent you:
warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
>> So I've built SAFEcode in a 32-bit chroot (I get the aliasing warnings
>> on 32-bit too).
>> A simple test program works, however when trying to compile ClamAV I get
>> an error right on startup, and it aborts!
>> The docs say that if I don't use terminate it should go on.
> The -terminate option used to work but broke during some refactoring
> of the error reporting code. Getting it to work again is on my TODO
> list. You can get the behavior you want, for now, by removing the
> abort() line from runtime/DebugRuntime/Report.cpp.
> As far as the ClamAV error, are you sure it's a false positive (i.e.,
> a bug in SAFECode)? I ran SAFECode on the programs in
> MultiSource/Applications and found that quite a few programs have
> memory safety errors.
One of the errors is in libltdl, the other one inside optparser in ClamAV.
Neither of these errors show up in valgrind, and mudflap.
That doesn't mean there is no error there, its just very unlikely.
Do you accept NULL as a parameter to free? If not that might the problem
> In the case of ClamAV, a false positive might occur if 1) the memory
> object is allocated by a library linked in as native code, or 2) the
> memory object is allocated via some C library function that SAFECode
> doesn't recognize as an allocator (e.g., getenv() or getpwent()).
> Handling the latter requires some simple changes to the DSA analysis
> and SAFECode so that it treats these functions as allocators.
The allocation is:
opts->filename = (char **) calloc(argc - optind + 1, sizeof(char *));
opts->filename[i - optind] = strdup(argv[i]);
The free is this one (according to addr2line, assuming you are reporting
the address of the call):
And it is this line (assuming you are reporting the return address, and
thus addr2line is one-off):
Nothing fancy here, standard libc allocations, my guess would be strdup.
Where is the list of allocator functions handled by DSA/SAFEcode?
However if I remove the abort as you suggest below, I get this:
SAFECode:Violation Type 0x2 when accessing 0xa1567e0 at IP=0x812892d
=======+++++++ SAFECODE RUNTIME ALERT +++++++=======
= Error type : Invalid Free Error
= Program counter : 0x812892d
= Faulting pointer : 0xa1567e0
void __pa_bitmap_poolfree(safecode::BitmapPoolTy*, void*): Assertion `PS
&& "poolfree: No poolslab found for object!\n"' failed.
>> SAFECode:Violation Type 0x2 when accessing 0x832d228 at IP=0x812b531
>> =======+++++++ SAFECODE RUNTIME ALERT +++++++=======
>> = Error type : Invalid Free Error
>> = Program counter : 0x812b531
>> = Faulting pointer : 0x832d228
>> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
>> 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
>> #1 0xf7d713d0 in raise () from /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
>> #2 0xf7d74a85 in abort () from /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
>> #3 0x08214227 in
>> safecode::ReportMemoryViolation(safecode::ViolationInfo const*) ()
>> #4 0xf7fccea0 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6
>> Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)
>> I did compile ClamAV with -g, I even used -disable-opt for llvm-ld, but
>> I still don't see line number error there (according to the docs I
> Hrm. Yes. This seems to be a missing feature. I think I can add it
> relatively easily.
>> $ ~/llvm2.6/obj32/projects/safecode/Release/bin/sc -rewrite-oob
>> clamscan.bc -o clamscan_sc3.bc
>> $ ~/llvm2.6/obj32/Release/bin/llc clamscan_sc3.bc -f
>> $ gcc -o clamscan_sc3 clamscan_sc3.s
>> -lstdc++ -lbz2 -pthread -lz ../libltdl/.libs/libltdlcS.o
>> And I've built ClamAV like this:
>> $ ./configure CC=llvm-gcc --disable-shared
>> $ make CPPFLAGS="-O2 -g -emit-llvm" CFLAGS=
>> CCLD="/home/edwin/llvm2.6/obj32/Release/bin/llvm-ld -disable-opt" -j8
>> If I use addr2line on the IP printed by SAFEcode, I get this, but I
>> don't see anything wrong there:
>> If I use the system's libltdl I get an invalid freee error here:
>> Is there a way to disable these invalid free errors? They look like
>> false positives to me (valgrind doesn't report them).
> Not currently. SAFECode should not have false positives. There is
> either a real error in ClamAV or a bug in SAFECode.
Ok, in that case a flag to warn about unknown pointers would help: i.e.
warnings calls to native functions that DSA/SAFEcode doesn't know about
that can return a pointer (or create one in another way,
by filling a struct field for example). This could be a runtime warning
too, whenever you use something that could have been modified by native
code, if you stumble across a pointer
to an unknown memory zone: warn about it.
>> I can send you clamscan.bc (it is 2.3M gzipped) if you want to.
> Let me first enhance the invalid free error reporting. That may help
> you narrow down what SAFECode thinks the problem is and may help rule
> out the possibility of a real memory error in ClamAV. After that, if
> SAFECode is still reporting an error, and you can't figure out why, I
> can add looking at the problem to my TODO list.
Thanks, linenumber for the error, and a stacktrace would help a lot.
Also saying why it is an invalid free would help:
- is it trying to free something that was already freed (in that case
were was the previous free)?
- is it trying to free something that was never allocated?
- is it trying to free a stack allocated object? (doesn't appear to be
the case here)
>> P.S.: should I send "bugs" like this to you directly, or report them on
>> LLVM bugzilla?
> I think it's actually best to file bug reports for each individual
> issue. That way, we can track their progress, and they won't get lost
> in my email INBOX.
> Thanks again for giving SAFECode a test drive. I'll try to get the
> invalid free error reporting improved within the next day or two. If
> you can let me know how to apply your patch (patch < patchfile isn't
> working for me), that'd be great too.
> Thanks again!
Thanks for making SAFEcode available.
More information about the LLVMdev