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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 13:13:30 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fortify: Work around Clang inlining bugs

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:04:36AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:22 AM Kees Cook <> wrote:
> >
> > To enable FORTIFY_SOURCE support for Clang, the kernel must work around
> > a pair of bugs, related to Clang's inlining:
> >
> > 1) Change all the fortified string APIs into macros with different
> > inline names to bypass Clang's broken inline-of-a-builtin detection:
> >
> >
> > 2) Lift all misbehaving __builtin_object_size() calls into the macros
> > to bypass Clang's broken __builtin_object_size() arguments-of-an-inline
> > visibility:
> >
> ^ mentions a difference in compilers for mode 1. I wonder if this
> patch could "hoist" the BOS calls into the macro ONLY for mode 1 and
> not mode 0 usage? i.e. the str* functions, not the mem* functions.

Everything (with a couple exceptions) is using mode 1 after the earlier
patches in the series. e.g.:

+#define memcpy(p, q, s)  __fortify_memcpy_chk(p, q, s, \
+		__builtin_object_size(p, 0), __builtin_object_size(q, 0), \
+		__builtin_object_size(p, 1), __builtin_object_size(q, 1), \
+		memcpy)

> It's too late to fix these in clang-13.  If we get a fix in clang-14
> or later, what does that look like for this header?  Is there a way we

If the bos mode 1 got fixed for Clang 14, this patch would likely be
dropped and the Clang + FORTIFY version check would be moved to Clang

> can provide a different header than include/linux/fortify-string.h
> just for clang-13 (or whatever versions until the above are fixed)?

So much of it would be identical. This macro-ification is least
invasive, and it's pretty invasive.

> I don't see this series getting backported to stable, where older
> versions of clang may still be in use.


> I'm tempted to say "let's get get these 2 fixed in clang-14" but we'll
> probably have to trade something off the existing TODO list.


Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists