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  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:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 00:06:13 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Compiler Attributes: Add __alloc_size() for
 better bounds checking

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 04:19:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:40:15 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 
> > GCC and Clang can use the "alloc_size" attribute to better inform the
> > results of __builtin_object_size() (for compile-time constant values).
> > Clang can additionally use alloc_size to inform the results of
> > __builtin_dynamic_object_size() (for run-time values).
> > 
> > Because GCC sees the frequent use of struct_size() as an allocator size
> > argument, and notices it can return SIZE_MAX (the overflow indication),
> > it complains about these call sites may overflow (since SIZE_MAX is
> > greater than the default -Walloc-size-larger-than=PTRDIFF_MAX). This
> > isn't helpful since we already know a SIZE_MAX will be caught at run-time
> > (this was an intentional design). Instead, just disable this check as
> > it is both a false positive and redundant. (Clang does not have this
> > warning option.)
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -1078,9 +1078,13 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, stringop-overflow)
> >  # Another good warning that we'll want to enable eventually
> >  KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, restrict)
> >  
> > -# Enabled with W=2, disabled by default as noisy
> >  ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
> > +# Enabled with W=2, disabled by default as noisy
> >  KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
> > +
> > +# The allocators already balk at large sizes, so silence the compiler
> > +# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values.
> > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than
> >  endif
> >  
> >  # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
> 
> Makefile has changed.  I did this:
> 
> --- a/Makefile~compiler-attributes-add-__alloc_size-for-better-bounds-checking
> +++ a/Makefile
> @@ -1003,6 +1003,12 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warni
>  # Enabled with W=2, disabled by default as noisy
>  KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, maybe-uninitialized)
>  
> +ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
> +# The allocators already balk at large sizes, so silence the compiler
> +# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values.
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than
> +endif
> +
>  # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
>  KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -fno-strict-overflow

Oh, er, where did "Makefile: remove stale cc-option checks" go? Ah, I
see now:
https://lore.kernel.org/mm-commits/20210814215814.W_qqW%25akpm@linux-foundation.org/T/#u

Looks like I just happened to pick the wrong linux-next. ;)

Thanks for the fix-up!

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists