linux-hardening - Re: On clang vs. gcc fortify warnings

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

Message-ID: <048aeae6-6357-a29d-8e2c-8f75c4ce265b@gotplt.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 10:25:52 -0400
From:   Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@...plt.org>
To:     Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: On clang vs. gcc fortify warnings

On 2023-06-22 06:42, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> Recently I've observed a (not so?) subtle difference using 
> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y
> with clang vs. gcc. The problem may be illustrated by the following tiny 
> module:
> 
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/fortify-string.h>
> 
> static const char example[][32] = {
>      "abcd",
>      "xyzt",
>      "1234",
>      "5678"
> };
> 
> static int __init test_init(void) {
>      char data0[128], data1[128];
> 
>      /* No warnings with both gcc 13.1.1 and clang 16.0.5 */
>          memcpy(data0, example, sizeof(example));
> 
>      /* No warning with gcc 13.1.1 but warning with clang 16.0.5:
> 
>         ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:529:4: warning: call to
>         '__read_overflow2_field' declared with 'warning' attribute:
>         detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe
>         use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
>                          __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size);
>      */
> 
>      memcpy(data1, *example, sizeof(example));
>          return 0;
> }
> 
> static void __exit test_exit(void) {
> }
> 
> module_init(test_init);
> module_exit(test_exit);
> 
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> 
> I suppose that clang wins here because 'memcpy(data1, *example, 
> sizeof(example))'
> may be interpreted as an attempt to copy 128 bytes from 32-byte source 
> buffer.
> So the question is why gcc don't diagnose this as well.

Sorry, I can't reproduce the warning on clang 16.0.5 with the default 
config +CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE on x86_64.  Could you share more details 
on your config or a preprocessed source and compiler flags that get 
passed in?

Thanks,
Sid