peterhuene opened Issue #1728:
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Can you include a CLIF test case,
ideally reduced with thebugpoint
clif-util command?
repro.clif
:set opt_level=speed_and_size set is_pic target x86_64 haswell function %foo() windows_fastcall { fn0 = %bar(i64) ss0 = explicit_slot 8 block0: v1 = stack_addr.i64 ss0 call fn0(v1) return }
$ clif-util compile -D repro.clif
- What do you expect to happen? What does actually happen? Does it panic, and
if so, with which assertion?Actual output:
.byte 85, 72, 137, 229, 87, 72, 131, 236, 40, 72, 141, 132, 36, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 137, 199, 232, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 131, 196, 40, 95, 93, 195 Disassembly of 32 bytes: 0: 55 push rbp 1: 48 89 e5 mov rbp, rsp 4: 57 push rdi 5: 48 83 ec 28 sub rsp, 0x28 9: 48 8d 84 24 00 00 00 00 lea rax, [rsp] 11: 48 89 c7 mov rdi, rax 14: e8 00 00 00 00 call 0x19 19: 48 83 c4 28 add rsp, 0x28 1d: 5f pop rdi 1e: 5d pop rbp 1f: c3 ret
Note the instruction at offset 9 that is loading the address of the explicit stack slot:
lea rax, [rsp]
. The address loaded is actually inside the callee's 32 bytes of shadow space.I expect this instruction to actually account for the calling convention's shadow space:
lea rax, [rsp+0x20]
.Because of how we're currently saving callee-saved FPRs, we're actually saving the FPRs into this area of the stack as well, meaning that the callee might trash the caller's saved FPRs as they're allowed to use this space freely.
Because Cranelift itself doesn't make use of the caller-provided shadow space, this won't happen for Cranelift-to-Cranelift calls; however, calling into external functions will certainly make use of the shadow space.
- Which Cranelift version / commit hash / branch are you using?
26e06297957bbc06b3244bc96d2e92b4246e8d9b
- If relevant, can you include some extra information about your environment?
(Rust version, operating system, architecture...)Rust: 1.43.1
Operating system: Arch Linux
Arch: x86-64
peterhuene labeled Issue #1728:
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Can you include a CLIF test case,
ideally reduced with thebugpoint
clif-util command?
repro.clif
:set opt_level=speed_and_size set is_pic target x86_64 haswell function %foo() windows_fastcall { fn0 = %bar(i64) ss0 = explicit_slot 8 block0: v1 = stack_addr.i64 ss0 call fn0(v1) return }
$ clif-util compile -D repro.clif
- What do you expect to happen? What does actually happen? Does it panic, and
if so, with which assertion?Actual output:
.byte 85, 72, 137, 229, 87, 72, 131, 236, 40, 72, 141, 132, 36, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 137, 199, 232, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 131, 196, 40, 95, 93, 195 Disassembly of 32 bytes: 0: 55 push rbp 1: 48 89 e5 mov rbp, rsp 4: 57 push rdi 5: 48 83 ec 28 sub rsp, 0x28 9: 48 8d 84 24 00 00 00 00 lea rax, [rsp] 11: 48 89 c7 mov rdi, rax 14: e8 00 00 00 00 call 0x19 19: 48 83 c4 28 add rsp, 0x28 1d: 5f pop rdi 1e: 5d pop rbp 1f: c3 ret
Note the instruction at offset 9 that is loading the address of the explicit stack slot:
lea rax, [rsp]
. The address loaded is actually inside the callee's 32 bytes of shadow space.I expect this instruction to actually account for the calling convention's shadow space:
lea rax, [rsp+0x20]
.Because of how we're currently saving callee-saved FPRs, we're actually saving the FPRs into this area of the stack as well, meaning that the callee might trash the caller's saved FPRs as they're allowed to use this space freely.
Because Cranelift itself doesn't make use of the caller-provided shadow space, this won't happen for Cranelift-to-Cranelift calls; however, calling into external functions will certainly make use of the shadow space.
- Which Cranelift version / commit hash / branch are you using?
26e06297957bbc06b3244bc96d2e92b4246e8d9b
- If relevant, can you include some extra information about your environment?
(Rust version, operating system, architecture...)Rust: 1.43.1
Operating system: Arch Linux
Arch: x86-64
peterhuene labeled Issue #1728:
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Can you include a CLIF test case,
ideally reduced with thebugpoint
clif-util command?
repro.clif
:set opt_level=speed_and_size set is_pic target x86_64 haswell function %foo() windows_fastcall { fn0 = %bar(i64) ss0 = explicit_slot 8 block0: v1 = stack_addr.i64 ss0 call fn0(v1) return }
$ clif-util compile -D repro.clif
- What do you expect to happen? What does actually happen? Does it panic, and
if so, with which assertion?Actual output:
.byte 85, 72, 137, 229, 87, 72, 131, 236, 40, 72, 141, 132, 36, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 137, 199, 232, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 131, 196, 40, 95, 93, 195 Disassembly of 32 bytes: 0: 55 push rbp 1: 48 89 e5 mov rbp, rsp 4: 57 push rdi 5: 48 83 ec 28 sub rsp, 0x28 9: 48 8d 84 24 00 00 00 00 lea rax, [rsp] 11: 48 89 c7 mov rdi, rax 14: e8 00 00 00 00 call 0x19 19: 48 83 c4 28 add rsp, 0x28 1d: 5f pop rdi 1e: 5d pop rbp 1f: c3 ret
Note the instruction at offset 9 that is loading the address of the explicit stack slot:
lea rax, [rsp]
. The address loaded is actually inside the callee's 32 bytes of shadow space.I expect this instruction to actually account for the calling convention's shadow space:
lea rax, [rsp+0x20]
.Because of how we're currently saving callee-saved FPRs, we're actually saving the FPRs into this area of the stack as well, meaning that the callee might trash the caller's saved FPRs as they're allowed to use this space freely.
Because Cranelift itself doesn't make use of the caller-provided shadow space, this won't happen for Cranelift-to-Cranelift calls; however, calling into external functions will certainly make use of the shadow space.
- Which Cranelift version / commit hash / branch are you using?
26e06297957bbc06b3244bc96d2e92b4246e8d9b
- If relevant, can you include some extra information about your environment?
(Rust version, operating system, architecture...)Rust: 1.43.1
Operating system: Arch Linux
Arch: x86-64
peterhuene assigned Issue #1728:
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Can you include a CLIF test case,
ideally reduced with thebugpoint
clif-util command?
repro.clif
:set opt_level=speed_and_size set is_pic target x86_64 haswell function %foo() windows_fastcall { fn0 = %bar(i64) ss0 = explicit_slot 8 block0: v1 = stack_addr.i64 ss0 call fn0(v1) return }
$ clif-util compile -D repro.clif
- What do you expect to happen? What does actually happen? Does it panic, and
if so, with which assertion?Actual output:
.byte 85, 72, 137, 229, 87, 72, 131, 236, 40, 72, 141, 132, 36, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 137, 199, 232, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 131, 196, 40, 95, 93, 195 Disassembly of 32 bytes: 0: 55 push rbp 1: 48 89 e5 mov rbp, rsp 4: 57 push rdi 5: 48 83 ec 28 sub rsp, 0x28 9: 48 8d 84 24 00 00 00 00 lea rax, [rsp] 11: 48 89 c7 mov rdi, rax 14: e8 00 00 00 00 call 0x19 19: 48 83 c4 28 add rsp, 0x28 1d: 5f pop rdi 1e: 5d pop rbp 1f: c3 ret
Note the instruction at offset 9 that is loading the address of the explicit stack slot:
lea rax, [rsp]
. The address loaded is actually inside the callee's 32 bytes of shadow space.I expect this instruction to actually account for the calling convention's shadow space:
lea rax, [rsp+0x20]
.Because of how we're currently saving callee-saved FPRs, we're actually saving the FPRs into this area of the stack as well, meaning that the callee might trash the caller's saved FPRs as they're allowed to use this space freely.
Because Cranelift itself doesn't make use of the caller-provided shadow space, this won't happen for Cranelift-to-Cranelift calls; however, calling into external functions will certainly make use of the shadow space.
- Which Cranelift version / commit hash / branch are you using?
26e06297957bbc06b3244bc96d2e92b4246e8d9b
- If relevant, can you include some extra information about your environment?
(Rust version, operating system, architecture...)Rust: 1.43.1
Operating system: Arch Linux
Arch: x86-64
github-actions[bot] commented on Issue #1728:
Subscribe to Label Action
cc @bnjbvr
<details>
This issue or pull request has been labeled: "cranelift"Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:
- bnjbvr: cranelift
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the <code>.github/subscribe-to-label.json</code> configuration file.
Learn more.
</details>
peterhuene commented on Issue #1728:
Note that I'm currently in the process of fixing where we store callee saved FPRs as they should not be stored as explicit slots.
peterhuene closed Issue #1728 (assigned to peterhuene):
- What are the steps to reproduce the issue? Can you include a CLIF test case,
ideally reduced with thebugpoint
clif-util command?
repro.clif
:set opt_level=speed_and_size set is_pic target x86_64 haswell function %foo() windows_fastcall { fn0 = %bar(i64) ss0 = explicit_slot 8 block0: v1 = stack_addr.i64 ss0 call fn0(v1) return }
$ clif-util compile -D repro.clif
- What do you expect to happen? What does actually happen? Does it panic, and
if so, with which assertion?Actual output:
.byte 85, 72, 137, 229, 87, 72, 131, 236, 40, 72, 141, 132, 36, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 137, 199, 232, 0, 0, 0, 0, 72, 131, 196, 40, 95, 93, 195 Disassembly of 32 bytes: 0: 55 push rbp 1: 48 89 e5 mov rbp, rsp 4: 57 push rdi 5: 48 83 ec 28 sub rsp, 0x28 9: 48 8d 84 24 00 00 00 00 lea rax, [rsp] 11: 48 89 c7 mov rdi, rax 14: e8 00 00 00 00 call 0x19 19: 48 83 c4 28 add rsp, 0x28 1d: 5f pop rdi 1e: 5d pop rbp 1f: c3 ret
Note the instruction at offset 9 that is loading the address of the explicit stack slot:
lea rax, [rsp]
. The address loaded is actually inside the callee's 32 bytes of shadow space.I expect this instruction to actually account for the calling convention's shadow space:
lea rax, [rsp+0x20]
.Because of how we're currently saving callee-saved FPRs, we're actually saving the FPRs into this area of the stack as well, meaning that the callee might trash the caller's saved FPRs as they're allowed to use this space freely.
Because Cranelift itself doesn't make use of the caller-provided shadow space, this won't happen for Cranelift-to-Cranelift calls; however, calling into external functions will certainly make use of the shadow space.
- Which Cranelift version / commit hash / branch are you using?
26e06297957bbc06b3244bc96d2e92b4246e8d9b
- If relevant, can you include some extra information about your environment?
(Rust version, operating system, architecture...)Rust: 1.43.1
Operating system: Arch Linux
Arch: x86-64
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC