-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.2k
[libc++] Properly implement array cookies in the ARM ABI #160182
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
a7c7ceb
11c3519
68627d8
2317797
57c6da5
a4ae527
22c9a78
563aef6
69e8b8f
d0026cc
588aace
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ | |||
#include <__config> | ||||
#include <__configuration/abi.h> | ||||
#include <__cstddef/size_t.h> | ||||
#include <__memory/addressof.h> | ||||
#include <__type_traits/integral_constant.h> | ||||
#include <__type_traits/is_trivially_destructible.h> | ||||
#include <__type_traits/negation.h> | ||||
|
@@ -26,28 +27,100 @@ _LIBCPP_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_STD | |||
// Trait representing whether a type requires an array cookie at the start of its allocation when | ||||
// allocated as `new T[n]` and deallocated as `delete[] array`. | ||||
// | ||||
// Under the Itanium C++ ABI [1], we know that an array cookie is available unless `T` is trivially | ||||
// destructible and the call to `operator delete[]` is not a sized operator delete. Under ABIs other | ||||
// than the Itanium ABI, we assume there are no array cookies. | ||||
// Under the Itanium C++ ABI [1] and the ARM ABI which derives from it, we know that an array cookie is available | ||||
// unless `T` is trivially destructible and the call to `operator delete[]` is not a sized operator delete. Under | ||||
// other ABIs, we assume there are no array cookies. | ||||
// | ||||
// [1]: https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#array-cookies | ||||
#ifdef _LIBCPP_ABI_ITANIUM | ||||
#if defined(_LIBCPP_ABI_ITANIUM) || defined(_LIBCPP_ABI_ITANIUM_WITH_ARM_DIFFERENCES) | ||||
// TODO: Use a builtin instead | ||||
// TODO: We should factor in the choice of the usual deallocation function in this determination. | ||||
// TODO: We should factor in the choice of the usual deallocation function in this determination: | ||||
// a cookie may be available in more cases but we ignore those for now. | ||||
template <class _Tp> | ||||
struct __has_array_cookie : _Not<is_trivially_destructible<_Tp> > {}; | ||||
#else | ||||
template <class _Tp> | ||||
struct __has_array_cookie : false_type {}; | ||||
#endif | ||||
|
||||
template <class _Tp, bool _HasPadding = (_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_ALIGNOF(_Tp) > sizeof(size_t))> | ||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Are you sure There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes: llvm-project/clang/lib/CodeGen/ItaniumCXXABI.cpp Line 2513 in 36bce68
I suspect that's because the Itanium C++ ABI document predates the point where Clang changed Looks like |
||||
struct [[__gnu__::__aligned__(_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_ALIGNOF(_Tp))]] __itanium_array_cookie { | ||||
size_t __element_count; | ||||
}; | ||||
|
||||
template <class _Tp> | ||||
struct [[__gnu__::__aligned__(_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_ALIGNOF(_Tp))]] __itanium_array_cookie<_Tp, /* _HasPadding */ true> { | ||||
char __padding[_LIBCPP_PREFERRED_ALIGNOF(_Tp) - sizeof(size_t)]; | ||||
size_t __element_count; | ||||
}; | ||||
Comment on lines
+52
to
+55
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. AFAICT if we just ignore the template argument we don't need the There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't understand what you mean, can you explain? I like that we're being explicit about the layout of the cookie (padding + payload). This is subtle code -- it should be as explicit as possible. Cleverness or terseness of the code here is the wrong thing to optimize for. |
||||
|
||||
template <class _Tp> | ||||
struct [[__gnu__::__aligned__(_LIBCPP_ALIGNOF(_Tp))]] __arm_array_cookie { | ||||
size_t __element_size; | ||||
size_t __element_count; | ||||
}; | ||||
|
||||
// Return the element count in the array cookie located before the given pointer. | ||||
// | ||||
// In the Itanium ABI [1] | ||||
// ---------------------- | ||||
// The element count is stored immediately before the first element of the array. If the preferred alignment | ||||
// of array elements (which is different from the ABI alignment) is more than that of size_t, additional | ||||
// padding bytes exist at the beginning of the array cookie. Assuming array elements of size and alignment 16 | ||||
// bytes, that gives us the following layout: | ||||
// | ||||
// |ooooooooxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbccccccccccccccccdddddddddddddddd| | ||||
// ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||||
// | ^^^^^^^^ | | ||||
// | | array elements | ||||
// padding | | ||||
// element count | ||||
// | ||||
// In practice, it is sufficient to read the bytes immediately before the first array element. | ||||
// | ||||
// | ||||
// In the Itanium ABI with ARM differences [2] | ||||
// ------------------------------------------- | ||||
// The array cookie is stored at the very start of the allocation and it has the following form: | ||||
// | ||||
// struct array_cookie { | ||||
// std::size_t element_size; // element_size != 0 | ||||
// std::size_t element_count; | ||||
// }; | ||||
// | ||||
// Assuming elements of size and alignment 32 bytes, this gives us the following layout: | ||||
// | ||||
// |xxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb| | ||||
// ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||||
// | ^^^^^^^^ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||||
// element size | padding | | ||||
// element count array elements | ||||
// | ||||
// We calculate the starting address of the allocation by taking into account the ABI alignment (not | ||||
// the preferred alignment) of the type. | ||||
// | ||||
// [1]: https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#array-cookies | ||||
// [2]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/writing-arm64-code-for-apple-platforms#Handle-C++-differences | ||||
template <class _Tp> | ||||
// Avoid failures when -fsanitize-address-poison-custom-array-cookie is enabled | ||||
_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_NO_SANITIZE("address") size_t __get_array_cookie(_Tp const* __ptr) { | ||||
_LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI _LIBCPP_NO_SANITIZE("address") size_t __get_array_cookie([[__maybe_unused__]] _Tp const* __ptr) { | ||||
static_assert( | ||||
__has_array_cookie<_Tp>::value, "Trying to access the array cookie of a type that is not guaranteed to have one"); | ||||
size_t const* __cookie = reinterpret_cast<size_t const*>(__ptr) - 1; // TODO: Use a builtin instead | ||||
return *__cookie; | ||||
|
||||
#if defined(_LIBCPP_ABI_ITANIUM) | ||||
using _ArrayCookie = __itanium_array_cookie<_Tp>; | ||||
#elif defined(_LIBCPP_ABI_ITANIUM_WITH_ARM_DIFFERENCES) | ||||
using _ArrayCookie = __arm_array_cookie<_Tp>; | ||||
#else | ||||
static_assert(false, "The array cookie layout is unknown on this ABI"); | ||||
#endif | ||||
|
||||
char const* __allocation_start = reinterpret_cast<char const*>(__ptr) - sizeof(_ArrayCookie); | ||||
ldionne marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||||
_ArrayCookie __cookie; | ||||
// This is necessary to avoid violating strict aliasing. It's valid because _ArrayCookie is an | ||||
// implicit lifetime type. | ||||
__builtin_memcpy(std::addressof(__cookie), __allocation_start, sizeof(_ArrayCookie)); | ||||
return __cookie.__element_count; | ||||
} | ||||
|
||||
_LIBCPP_END_NAMESPACE_STD | ||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a reason we define this separately?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So we can have a comment and call it out explicitly, because it's subtle otherwise.