Skip to content
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
16 changes: 7 additions & 9 deletions llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/RealtimeSanitizer.cpp
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -61,23 +61,21 @@ static void insertCallAtAllFunctionExitPoints(Function &Fn,
insertCallBeforeInstruction(Fn, I, InsertFnName, FunctionArgs);
}

static PreservedAnalyses rtsanPreservedCFGAnalyses() {
PreservedAnalyses PA;
PA.preserveSet<CFGAnalyses>();
return PA;
}
static void runSanitizeRealtime(Function &Fn) {
if (Fn.empty())
return;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there precedence in other sanitizer passes for doing this? (Curious how they solved this problem)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the good idea. I hadn't looked before drafting this PR, but it appears like ASan solves it a similar way at one level higher - at the top level of the pass's run method:

ThreadSanitizer has a bool check for whether it should sanitizeFunction, which returns false if there are no calls in it. MemorySanitizer does the same thing as AddressSanitizer with a continue at the top level if the function is .empty().

If you prefer the ASan/MSan semantics I'm very happy to switch to it 👍


static PreservedAnalyses runSanitizeRealtime(Function &Fn) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is not returning these preserved analyses going to bite us elsewhere? I remember most of the sanitizer transform passes (or transform passes generally) returning these.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@davidtrevelyan davidtrevelyan Nov 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps! But the issue is we're already not returning these preserved analyses - they're sadly discarded at the moment. I would advocate for this NFC because it makes the current behaviour explicit - even if it's not correct. I bundled this change in with this PR because it made the implementation of the checking a bit easier, but I'd be happy to submit this in a separate preparatory PR first - if that's easier to follow - just let me know.

insertCallAtFunctionEntryPoint(Fn, "__rtsan_realtime_enter", {});
insertCallAtAllFunctionExitPoints(Fn, "__rtsan_realtime_exit", {});
return rtsanPreservedCFGAnalyses();
}

static PreservedAnalyses runSanitizeRealtimeBlocking(Function &Fn) {
static void runSanitizeRealtimeBlocking(Function &Fn) {
if (Fn.empty())
return;

IRBuilder<> Builder(&Fn.front().front());
Value *Name = Builder.CreateGlobalString(demangle(Fn.getName()));
insertCallAtFunctionEntryPoint(Fn, "__rtsan_notify_blocking_call", {Name});
return rtsanPreservedCFGAnalyses();
}

PreservedAnalyses RealtimeSanitizerPass::run(Module &M,
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
; RUN: opt < %s -passes='rtsan' -S | FileCheck %s

declare void @declared_realtime_function() sanitize_realtime #0

declare void @declared_blocking_function() sanitize_realtime_blocking #0

; RealtimeSanitizer pass should ignore attributed functions that are just declarations
; CHECK: declared_realtime_function
; CHECK-EMPTY:
; CHECK: declared_blocking_function
; CHECK-EMPTY: