PCC: switch "max" facts to "range" facts with two-sided ranges.#7263
Merged
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
cranelift
fitzgen
approved these changes
Oct 17, 2023
This is needed for soundness when verifying accesses to memtype fields: it's not enough to know that we're accessing an offset in `0` up to `field_offset` inclusive, we need to know the access is actually to `field_offset`. The simplest change that validates this turned out to be the most general one: making ranges two-sided rather than one-sided. The transform is *mostly* mechanical, but a few new tests verify that ranges are updated on both sides, and some fail-tests verify that "fuzzily imprecise" pointers to struct fields fail to validate.
cfallin
force-pushed
the
pcc-two-sided-range
branch
from
869a710 to
f6b7ba2
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is needed for soundness when verifying accesses to memtype fields: it's not enough to know that we're accessing an offset in
0up tofield_offsetinclusive, we need to know the access is actually tofield_offset.The simplest change that validates this turned out to be the most general one: making ranges two-sided rather than one-sided. The transform is mostly mechanical, but a few new tests verify that ranges are updated on both sides, and some fail-tests verify that "fuzzily imprecise" pointers to struct fields fail to validate.