-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 133
fix(Secretize): Selective output wrapping in WrapGeneric using SecretnessAnalysis #2577
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.
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
pantha704
wants to merge
2
commits into
google:main
Choose a base branch
from
pantha704:fix/wrapgeneric-output-type
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you! I think instead of cloning only secret ops in, I think this particular pattern should just be wrapping the entire block in a generic, but modifying just the selective output wrapping that you did with newOutputs.
There are other patterns that would also benefit from taking the solver in this file, but maybe we can go pattern by pattern to integrate the secretness analysis (for example, HoistPlaintextOps would benefit, and that would hoist plaintext ops outside of the secret body if they can be hoisted).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the core issue is that if you secret.yield a plaintext SSA value, it becomes secret according to the secretness analysis and won't be automatically converted to a public value. We had this special behavior back in the CGGI pipeline because we wanted to make an empty memref secret as the initializer for a loop that put secret items inside it.
Maybe the relevant pattern could have an option to control its behavior, and we could have this pass specialize... Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
heir/lib/Dialect/Secret/IR/SecretPatterns.cpp
Line 107 in a6a0414
Right - that's why I think this pattern should also take secretness analysis and we should test if that allocated value will be used for secret storing values later. (That being said, I think that would mean secretness analysis would need a backwards analysis as well). But I think that's why I'd prefer this pass stay minimal and tackle that problem in a later PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we agree, but that would make this issue unresolvable until the secretness analysis is improved.