[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202209221714.1D792FE6@keescook>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:20:51 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@...plt.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fortify: Use __builtin_dynamic_object_size() when
available
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 04:26:54PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2022-09-20 15:21, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This adjusts CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE's coverage to include greater runtime
> > size checking from GCC and Clang's __builtin_dynamic_object_size(), which
> > the compilers can track either via code flow or from __alloc_size() hints.
> >
>
> FTR, I ran a linux build using gcc with allyesconfig and fortify-metrics[1]
> to get a sense of how much object size coverage would improve with
> __builtin_dynamic_object_size. With a total of 3,877 __builtin_object_size
> calls, about 11.37% succeed in getting a result that is not (size_t)-1. If
> they were replaced by __builtin_dynamic_object_size as this patch proposes,
> the success rate improves to 16.25%, which is a ~1.4x improvement.
Thanks for check that! Yeah, a 40% increase in coverage is nice. :0
> This is a decent improvement by itself but it can be amplified further by
> adding __attribute__((access (...)))[2] to function prototypes and
> definitions, especially for functions that take in buffers and their sizes
> as arguments since __builtin_dynamic_object_size in gcc is capable of
> recognizing that and using it for object size determination (and hence to
> fortify calls) within those functions.
Yeah, this could be another interest set of additions. It seems like it
might be more "coder friendly" if, in the future that has the
__element_count__ attribute, it could be used in function parameters
too, like:
If we had:
int do_something(struct context *ctx, u32 *data, int count)
this seems less easy to read to me:
int __access(read_write, 2, 3) do_something(struct context *ctx, u32 *data, int count)
as this seems more readable to me, though I guess the access-mode
information is lost:
int do_something(struct context *ctx, u32 * __element_count(count) data, int count)
But yes, this would be excellent to start adding!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists