linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: don't emit builtin calls when sanitization is off

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:12:32 -0500
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@...gle.com>,
        Pirama Arumuga Nainar <pirama@...gle.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Majnemer <majnemer@...gle.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>,
        Michael Kuperstein <mkuper@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kasan: don't emit builtin calls when sanitization is off

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Andrey Konovalov
<andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Hmm... I had mentioned this patch to some coworkers who have much more
>> knowledge about LLVM than me.  They had concern that LLVM needs memset
>> to be defined, and that there were discussions on the llvm mailing
>> list about this.
>>
>> I'm digging through trying to find anything relevant, maybe this one
>> about memcpy: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2012-May/050108.html
>>
>> I wonder if -ffreestanding is more appropriate?
>
> I don't mind using either of those, they both fix the issue.
>
> I'm struggling to understand the difference though. GCC documentation
> doesn't really explain it [1] and Clang documentation [2] is
> completely useless in this case.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html
> [2] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/clang.html

There's always the source, which is the ultimate source of truth. In LLVM,

lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp
lib/Transforms/Scalar/MemCpyOptimizer.cpp
include/llvm/Analysis/TargetLibraryInfo.h

are the only things with mentions of `no-builtin` or `freestanding`.

The driver is what parses these options:

build/tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.inc:
 774 OPTION(prefix_1, "ffreestanding", ffreestanding, Flag, f_Group,
INVALID, nullptr, CC1Option, 0,
 775        "Assert that the compilation takes place in a freestanding
environment", nullptr, nullptr)
...
1004 OPTION(prefix_1, "fno-builtin-", fno_builtin_, Joined, f_Group,
INVALID, nullptr, CC1Option, 0,
1005        "Disable implicit builtin knowledge of a specific
function", nullptr, nullptr)
1006 OPTION(prefix_1, "fno-builtin", fno_builtin, Flag, f_Group,
INVALID, nullptr, CC1Option, 0,
1007        "Disable implicit builtin knowledge of functions", nullptr, nullptr)

It looks like the TargetLibraryInfo#disableAllFunctions() method is
called in a few different drivers.  The options table generates all
kinds of code, but places that parse command line flags look for
`OPT_` + 3rd arg to OPTION.

In Clang, looking for OPT_no_fbuiltin and OPT_ffreestanding:

lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp
lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp

the second seems to set:

 559   Opts.SimplifyLibCalls = !(Args.hasArg(OPT_fno_builtin) ||
 560                             Args.hasArg(OPT_ffreestanding));
...
2201   Opts.Freestanding = Args.hasArg(OPT_ffreestanding);

which are then used back in LLVM.

Opts.Freestanding seems to be used from lots of LTO handling code in LLVM.

If ffreestanding implies fno-builtin, but does additional things with
LTO, then we might regress LTO (there's 2 patch sets in the works that
I know of) with KASAN by using ffreestanding rather than fno-builtin.
But lets cross that bridge when we get there (if we decide for some
reason that we need LTO+KASAN; I like both and if we start shipping
LTO kernels then you can bet we'd want to test them with KASAN).

So I don't think it hurts to keep v2 as is (sorry for the noise).

Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>

-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers