linux-hardening - Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 6.3-rc3

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6414c470.a70a0220.6b62f.3f02@mx.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2023 12:50:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 6.3-rc3

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:59:11AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> +Sanitizer folks (BCC'd)
> (Top of lore thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/9d0ef355-f430-e8e2-c844-b34cfcf60d88@kernel.dk/)
> 
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 11:35 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 10:16 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> > > Side note - when doing the usual allmodconfig builds with gcc-12 and
> > > clang before sending them out, for the latter I see this warning being
> > > spewed with clang-15:
> > >
> > > drivers/media/i2c/m5mols/m5mols.o: warning: objtool: m5mols_set_fmt() falls through to next function m5mols_get_frame_desc()
> > >
> > > Obviously not related to my changes, but mentioning it in case it has
> > > been missed as I know you love squeaky clean builds :-). Doesn't happen
> > > with clang-14.
> >
> > Hmm. I have clang-15 too, but I do the allmodconfig builds with gcc,
> > and only my own "normal config" builds with clang.
> >
> > So I don't see this particular issue and my builds are still squeaky clean.
> >
> > That said, when I explicitly try that allmodconfig thing with clang, I
> > can see it too. And the reason seems to be something we've seen
> > before: UBSAN functions being considered non-return by clang, so clang
> > generates code like this:
> >
> >    ....
> > .LBB24_3:
> >         callq   __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc@PLT
> >         movl    $2, %esi
> >         movq    $.L__unnamed_3, %rdi
> >         callq   __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds
> > .Lfunc_end24:
> >         .size   m5mols_set_fmt, .Lfunc_end24-m5mols_set_fmt
> >
> > ie the last thing in that m5mols_set_fmt() function is a call to
> > __ubsan_handle_out_of_bounds, and then it "falls through" to the next
> > function.
> >
> > And yes, I absolutely *detest* how clang does that. Not only does it
> > cause objtool sanity checking issues, it fundamentally means that we
> > can never treat UBSAN warnings as warnings. They are always fatal.

I've hit these cases a few times too. The __ubsan_handle_* stuff
is designed to be recoverable. I think there are some cases where
we're tripping over Clang bugs, though. Some of the past issues
have been with Clang thinking some UBSAN feature was trap-only
(e.g. -fsanitizer=local-bounds), but here it actually generated the call,
but decided it was no-return. *sigh*

> > But I suspect we need to disable UBSAN for clang, because clang gets
> > this so *horribly* wrong.

Which is to say, it normally gets it right, but there are some instances
where things go weird. If it was horribly wrong, there would be a LOT
more objtool warnings. :)

I'm not opposed to disabling UBSAN for all*config builds if we need to,
but I want to get these Clang bugs found and fixed so I'd be sad to lose
the coverage.

-- 
Kees Cook