linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 0/2] fortify: Add run-time WARN for cross-field memcpy()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YxEQg+fOpaPuS/NH@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 13:05:23 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fortify: Add run-time WARN for cross-field memcpy()

Hi Kees,

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:59:12PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm hoping to at least get this into -next to see how noisy it ends up
> being. I've tracked down several false positives that are getting fixed,
> but I'd like to see this get wider testing. For details, see patch 1,
> but this is the run-time half of the recent FORTIFY_SOURCE memcpy()
> bounds checking work.
> 
> -Kees
> 
> Kees Cook (2):
>   fortify: Add run-time WARN for cross-field memcpy()
>   lkdtm: Update tests for memcpy() run-time warnings
> 
>  drivers/misc/lkdtm/fortify.c            | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/fortify-string.h          | 70 +++++++++++++++++-
>  tools/testing/selftests/lkdtm/tests.txt |  8 ++-
>  3 files changed, 155 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

I took these two patches for a spin on four of my test machines (one
arm64 and three x86_64, kernel compiled with tip of tree clang) and I
did not see any warnings. Not to say there are not any lurking but my
set of drivers did not appear to trigger anything.

Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>

Cheers,
Nathan