Skip to content

LangRef: allocated objects can grow #141338

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+16 −0
Open

LangRef: allocated objects can grow #141338

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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: 16 additions & 0 deletions llvm/docs/LangRef.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3327,6 +3327,19 @@ behavior is undefined:
- the size of all allocated objects must be non-negative and not exceed the
largest signed integer that fits into the index type.

Allocated objects that are created with operations recognized by LLVM (such as
:ref:`alloca <i_alloca>`, heap allocation functions marked as such, and global
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The "heap allocation functions marked as such" part here is meant to capture everything LLVM recognizes as a heap allocation function. Is there a better way to say this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe "heap allocation functions with the allocsize attribute"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Doesn't LLVM also recognize malloc as a special magic name?

variables) may *not* change their size. (``realloc``-style operations do not
change the size of an existing allocated object; instead, they create a new
allocated object. Even if the object is at the same location as the old one, old
pointers cannot be used to access this new object.) However, allocated objects
can also be created by means not recognized by LLVM, e.g. by directly calling
``mmap``. Those allocated objects are allowed to grow to the right (i.e.,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It occurred to me that it may be helpful to point out here that realloc-style operations do not grow the allocation the sense described here. They always create a new allocation with fresh provenance, even if it may have the same base address as the previous allocation.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good point, I'll add that.

keeping the same base address, but increasing their size) while maintaining the
validity of existing pointers, as long as they always satisfy the properties
described above. Currently, allocated objects are not permitted to grow to the
left or to shrink, nor can they have holes.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given the restrictions, the compiler can't tell where the "beginning" of the object is, so I'm not sure forbidding growth to the left has any meaningful effect.

I'm not sure what a "hole" is, in this context. I don't think we require that all bytes of an object have to be dereferenceable. It might make sense to forbid overlapping live objects, though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@RalfJung RalfJung May 28, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Given the restrictions, the compiler can't tell where the "beginning" of the object is, so I'm not sure forbidding growth to the left has any meaningful effect.

It does have the one effect that it simplifies specifying when getelementptr inbounds is allowed for this allocated object. In particular if we combine this with changing the "beginning" of an allocated object by shrinking it, we can have a situation like:

  • let's say an allocation starts at addr and ends at mid and covers 1/3 of the address space
  • at moment A, it is okay to inbounds offset a pointer by 1/3 of the address space to the right from addr
  • then we shrink the allocation from the left, keeping only its last page
  • then we grow the allocation to the right
  • at moment B, it is okay to inbounds offset a pointer by 1/3 of the address space to the right from mid

But pointer offset is meant to be freely reorderable, so we could move the two offsets next to each other. We also can combine adjacent inbounds offset, preserving inbounds. But now we have an inbounds offset covering 2/3 of the address space which returns poison, so one of these steps was invalid.

I'm not sure what a "hole" is, in this context. I don't think we require that all bytes of an object have to be dereferenceable. It might make sense to forbid overlapping live objects, though.

By "hole" I mean e.g. munmaping a page from the middle of an otherwise contiguous range of allocated pages, while still considering the entire thing to be a single allocation. That seems like it would open a can of worms, e.g. optimizations could no longer assume things like:

  • load from %ptr
  • let %ptr2 be %ptr offset by 8k bytes (without inbounds)
  • load from %ptr2
  • Now we know the range between the two pointers is dereferenceable

Also, what exactly does getelementptr inbounds mean in the presence of holes?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In particular if we combine this with changing the "beginning" of an allocated object by shrinking it

But you currently forbid shrinking?

I mean e.g. munmaping a page from the middle of an otherwise contiguous range of allocated pages

I agree munmapping is problematic; overlapping objects would be hard to reason about. There are potentially useful "holes", though: mprotecting a page from a continuous range for a JIT would be a hole in the sense that reads aren't legal.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But you currently forbid shrinking?

Yeah but I'd like to allow it in the future -- it seems more important to me than growing to the left.

I agree munmapping is problematic; overlapping objects would be hard to reason about. There are potentially useful "holes", though: mprotecting a page from a continuous range for a JIT would be a hole in the sense that reads aren't legal.

I don't think an mprotect causing reads and writes to trap is fundamentally different from munmap for this purpose, or is it?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah but I'd like to allow it in the future -- it seems more important to me than growing to the left.

Hmm, okay.

I don't think an mprotect causing reads and writes to trap is fundamentally different from munmap for this purpose, or is it?

Alias analysis doesn't really care if an object is actually accessible at the moment; it just cares we don't overlap with some other object. Dereferenceability is only relevant if you want to do speculative loads. So you can separate dereferenceability from the rest of the properties of an allocation.


.. _objectlifetime:

Object Lifetime
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -11870,6 +11883,9 @@ if the ``getelementptr`` has any non-zero indices, the following rules apply:
:ref:`based <pointeraliasing>` on. This means that it points into that
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this semantics is problematic as you need to guess the future.
We need getelementptr to produce poison if it goes OOB, and with this wording, you need to delay the decision until the program exits, and then propagate it backwards.

This has implications in alias analysis. We would need to disable all rules that use reasoning such as p + offset > p's size to conclude no-alias, because the size may be increased later. We have a few of these rules in BasicAA.

Copy link
Contributor

@nikic nikic May 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this semantics is problematic as you need to guess the future. We need getelementptr to produce poison if it goes OOB, and with this wording, you need to delay the decision until the program exits, and then propagate it backwards.

See the comments above. I think we can avoid this issue by rephrasing this to something like:

If the allocated object can grow, then the relevant size for being in bounds is the maximal possible size the object could have (while satisfying the allocated object rules), not its current size.

I believe this still gives us all the properties we need from inbounds (in particular the ability to cross more than half the address space, even with a sequence of multiple inbounds operations).

This has implications in alias analysis. We would need to disable all rules that use reasoning such as p + offset > p's size to conclude no-alias, because the size may be increased later. We have a few of these rules in BasicAA.

This alias analysis only applies to fixed size objects with known size. I do not believe it will be affected by this change (which is only relevant to allocations which for LLVM does not know the size).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This has implications in alias analysis. We would need to disable all rules that use reasoning such as p + offset > p's size to conclude no-alias, because the size may be increased later. We have a few of these rules in BasicAA.

This alias analysis only applies to fixed size objects with known size. I do not believe it will be affected by this change (which is only relevant to allocations which for LLVM does not know the size).

Alias analysis works over heap-allocated objects. Anything that LLVM (MemoryBuiltins.h) can infer the size is fair game.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We would need to disable all rules that use reasoning such as p + offset > p's size to conclude no-alias, because the size may be increased later.

No, we don't -- the PR explicitly discusses this: all allocated objects created by operations that are built-in to LLVM must never change their size.

Alias analysis works over heap-allocated objects. Anything that LLVM (MemoryBuiltins.h) can infer the size is fair game.

Indeed, and that's fine. All we need is some way to allocate memory such that LLVM cannot infer the size (and promises to never infer it) -- e.g. by calling mmap, which I assume LLVM does not have a native understanding of.

Longer-term it may also be useful to offer a flag for malloc-like functions so that frontends can communicate to LLVM whether this allocation is allowed to change size or not, but that's left to future work.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this semantics is problematic as you need to guess the future. We need getelementptr to produce poison if it goes OOB, and with this wording, you need to delay the decision until the program exits, and then propagate it backwards.

My idea was that conceptually the size would be given in the code, e.g. if we had an actual formal model. LLVM IR would just omit it since y'all don't like spec-only parameters. ;)

But as long as we keep the start of the allocation fixed, then as Nikita says we can also just say that the relevant size is the theoretical maximum, not the actual maximum -- and that is a simple pure function of the start address of the allocation.

allocated object, or to its end. Note that the object does not have to be
live anymore; being in-bounds of a deallocated object is sufficient.
If the allocated object can grow, then the relevant size for being *in
bounds* is the maximal size the object could have while satisfying the
allocated object rules, not its current size.
* During the successive addition of offsets to the address, the resulting
pointer must remain *in bounds* of the allocated object at each step.

Expand Down
Loading