runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes #5713. #5716

cimes-isi · 2021-02-07T22:23:52Z

These changes are based primarily on visual code inspection in areas identified with some simple grep'ing as potentially problematic, with a subset of them verified to fix #5713 (e.g., I have not tested the data copy functions). As I am not that familiar with the codebase, I ask that the reviewer please check the runtime sources to see if I might have missed other similarly affected lines, and I'll be happy to add such additional fixes to the PR.

I will also note that there are various data types being used for offset computations, including at least int64_t, uint64_t, and ptrdiff_t. It might be better to be more consistent and use the datatypes that are actually intended for pointer calculations, like ptrdiff_t. The only such changes included here are to avoid overflow, not to apply consistency in the codebase.

steven-johnson · 2021-02-08T18:16:02Z

LGTM

dsharletg · 2021-02-07T22:29:05Z

src/runtime/HalideBuffer.h

@@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ class Buffer {
    void crop_host(int d, int min, int extent) {
        assert(dim(d).min() <= min);
        assert(dim(d).max() >= min + extent - 1);
-        int shift = min - dim(d).min();
+        ptrdiff_t shift = min - dim(d).min();
        if (buf.host != nullptr) {
            buf.host += shift * dim(d).stride() * type().bytes();


I think there should be parentheses/casts here to avoid the possibility of dim(d).stride * type().bytes() overflowing.

I don't think this is necessary since shift (now a ptrdiff_t) should force promotion of the other field in the expression. Is that not correct?

I was thinking it would depend on the order in which the compiler associates this arithmetic. Even if it's well defined behavior for the compiler to implement it as (shift * dim(d).stride()) * type().bytes(), we should at least add parentheses to make that explicit.

I believe the associativity is guaranteed to be left-to-right: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence

It may be, but I still think we should not rely on this, by adding explicit parentheses. It's easy for things like this to unintentionally break later because it is so subtle.

OK. And BTW, thanks for reviewing this.
I can get back to modifying this PR tomorrow afternoon and add explicit parenthesis, though frankly I think it actually makes things more confusing. I would look at such code and do a double take, wondering why those parenthesis are there at all, thinking I was actually missing something subtle. The same applies to unnecessary casts. IMO, if your goal is to inform developers who run across this code later, it's better to just add appropriate comments. If for some reason you don't trust the compiler to follow the C++ spec, then the correct approach is to add unit tests to actually verify behavior, which can then also detect regressions.
These are also the sorts of problems that can often be detected by static analysis.

I'm not worried about a non-conforming compiler, I'm more thinking that someone might come along and refactor the code somehow (e.g. pulling something into a temporary, reordering the expression) without realizing the order is important.

Added parenthesis

dsharletg · 2021-02-07T22:29:24Z

src/runtime/HalideBuffer.h

@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ class Buffer {
        assert(d >= 0 && d < dimensions());
        assert(pos >= dim(d).min() && pos <= dim(d).max());
        buf.dimensions--;
-        int shift = pos - buf.dim[d].min;
+        ptrdiff_t shift = pos - buf.dim[d].min;
        if (buf.host != nullptr) {
            buf.host += shift * buf.dim[d].stride * type().bytes();


I think there should be parentheses/casts here to avoid the possibility of dim(d).stride * type().bytes() overflowing.

Same reply as above.

src/runtime/HalideBuffer.h

@dsharletg

Not needed for correctness, but @dsharletg feels it adds clarity.

dsharletg · 2021-02-10T02:56:19Z

Thanks for the fix, and the changes.

dsharletg · 2021-02-10T02:57:12Z

src/runtime/device_buffer_utils.h

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ WEAK device_copy make_buffer_copy(const halide_buffer_t *src, bool src_host,
    // Offset the src base pointer to the right point in its buffer.
    c.src_begin = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < src->dimensions; i++) {
-        c.src_begin += src->dim[i].stride * (dst->dim[i].min - src->dim[i].min);
+        c.src_begin += (uint64_t)src->dim[i].stride * (dst->dim[i].min - src->dim[i].min);


Just noticed this on the last skim: should this be int64_t ?

The fields in struct device_copy are uint64_t type, including src_begin. Like I said - there's a lack of consistency in the codebase. This assumes that stride >= 0 and dst->dim[i].min >= src->dim[i].min. If these assumptions don't hold, then there is something more seriously wrong here I think.

I was thinking that the RHS here could be signed (as opposed to the two examples below, where it seems harmless to cast to uint64). But I agree that there are other issues here.

This should indeed be int64_t. The operations required to compute an offset given some strides, etc are multiplications, subtractions, additions. None of those differ between signed and unsigned (yay modulo arithmetic), so none of that matters. But there are also upcasts, and those are the only thing that differs between sign and unsigned. The source field is an int32_t, so it must be sign-extended. This PR casts an int32_t to a uint64_t. I'm honestly not sure whether that sign or zero extends. Using an int64_t would make it clear that it's sign-extending it. The rest of the arithmetic is invariant to signed vs unsigned.

There may be bugs elsewhere when the strides are negative, but let's not add a new one.

Is stride ever allowed to be a negative value? If not, then the PR should be fine as-is I think, otherwise we can do something like:

c.src_begin += (uint64_t)((int64_t)src->dim[i].stride * (dst->dim[i].min - src->dim[i].min));

The uint64_t cast is not strictly needed.
edit: actually, you could want src_begin to actually decrease in value?

Yes, we might want src_begin to decrease in value, and we may want to support negative strides in future. For now we should just write new code assuming they could be negative.

OK, but to be clear - stride is currently never negative? I want to make sure this change didn't break anything.

Some parts of Halide support negative strides and some don't. device buffer copies currently do not. So in this code, stride is currently not going to be negative (or other things would break too).

In theory, negative strides should be fully supported. As you've noticed, though, this is undertested (probably for both normal and large_buffers mode). We should add some tests that specifically exercise negative strides to verify that this works (and stays working). (Or declare that we don't support negative strides...)

dsharletg · 2021-02-10T18:05:42Z

src/runtime/device_buffer_utils.h

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ WEAK device_copy make_buffer_copy(const halide_buffer_t *src, bool src_host,
    // Offset the src base pointer to the right point in its buffer.
    c.src_begin = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < src->dimensions; i++) {
-        c.src_begin += src->dim[i].stride * (dst->dim[i].min - src->dim[i].min);
+        c.src_begin += (uint64_t)src->dim[i].stride * (dst->dim[i].min - src->dim[i].min);


I was thinking that the RHS here could be signed (as opposed to the two examples below, where it seems harmless to cast to uint64). But I agree that there are other issues here.

runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes halide#5713.

fe8e4aa

abadams requested a review from halidebuildbots February 8, 2021 05:00

dsharletg reviewed Feb 8, 2021

View reviewed changes

HalideBuffer: add explicit parenthesis in pointer arithmetic

729daaf

Not needed for correctness, but @dsharletg feels it adds clarity.

dsharletg reviewed Feb 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

dsharletg approved these changes Feb 10, 2021

View reviewed changes

dsharletg merged commit 935b91e into halide:master Feb 10, 2021

alexreinking added this to the v12.0.0 milestone Feb 16, 2021

abadams mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2021

Fix a few warnings from lgtm.com #5765

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes #5713. #5716

runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes #5713. #5716

cimes-isi commented Feb 7, 2021

steven-johnson commented Feb 8, 2021

dsharletg Feb 7, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 8, 2021

dsharletg Feb 8, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 8, 2021

dsharletg Feb 9, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 9, 2021

dsharletg Feb 9, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 9, 2021

dsharletg Feb 7, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 8, 2021

dsharletg commented Feb 10, 2021

dsharletg Feb 10, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 10, 2021

dsharletg Feb 10, 2021

abadams Feb 10, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading

abadams Feb 10, 2021

cimes-isi Feb 10, 2021

abadams Feb 10, 2021

steven-johnson Feb 10, 2021

dsharletg Feb 10, 2021

runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes #5713. #5716

runtime: fix pointer calculations to avoid overflows. Fixes #5713. #5716

Conversation

cimes-isi commented Feb 7, 2021

steven-johnson commented Feb 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dsharletg commented Feb 10, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cimes-isi Feb 10, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cimes-isi Feb 10, 2021 •

edited

Loading