netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in min()/max()

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:   Sat, 10 Mar 2018 08:03:47 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in min()/max()

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
>>>> (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the compiler
>>>> thinks this is a dynamic calculation due to the single-eval logic, which
>>>> is not needed in the literal case. This change removes several accidental
>>>> stack VLAs from an x86 allmodconfig build:
>>>>
>>>> $ diff -u before.txt after.txt | grep ^-
>>>> -drivers/input/touchscreen/cyttsp4_core.c:871:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘ids’ [-Wvla]
>>>> -fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:344:4: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘namebuf’ [-Wvla]
>>>> -lib/vsprintf.c:747:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘sym’ [-Wvla]
>>>> -net/ipv4/proc.c:403:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla]
>>>> -net/ipv6/proc.c:198:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla]
>>>> -net/ipv6/proc.c:218:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’ [-Wvla]
>>>>
>>>> Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf.
>>>
>>> v1, v2 and v3 of this patch all fail with gcc-4.4.4:
>>>
>>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h: In function 'jiffies_delta_to_clock_t':
>>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h:444: error: first argument to '__builtin_choose_expr' not a constant
>>
>>
>> I'm seeing that problem with
>>> gcc --version
>> gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5
>
> Same here, 4.8.5 fails. gcc 5.4.1 seems to work. I compiled a minimal
> 5.1.0 and it seems to work as well.
>

Just compiled 4.9.0 and it seems to work -- so that would be the
minimum required.

Sigh...

Some enterprise distros are either already shipping gcc >= 5 or will
probably be shipping it soon (e.g. RHEL 8), so how much does it hurt
to ask for a newer gcc? Are there many users/companies out there using
enterprise distributions' gcc to compile and run the very latest
kernels?

Miguel