linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hugetlb: Provide safer dummy values for HPAGE_MASK and HPAGE

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: <20111117152841.dc962d9d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:28:41 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hugetlb: Provide safer dummy values for
 HPAGE_MASK and HPAGE_SIZE

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:57:30 -0800
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com> wrote:

> From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
> 
> It was pointed out by David Rientjes that the dummy values for
> HPAGE_MASK and HPAGE_SIZE are quite unsafe.  It they are inadvertently
> used with !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE, compilation would succeed, but the
> resulting code would surly not do anything sensible.
> 
> Place BUG() in the these dummy definitions, as we do in similar
> circumstances in other places, so any abuse can be easily detected.
> 
> Since the only sane place to use these symbols when
> !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE is on dead code paths, the BUG() cause any actual
> code to be emitted by the compiler.

I assume you meant "omitted" here.

But I don't think it's true.  Any such code would occur after testing
is_vm_hugetlb_page() or similar, and would have been omitted anyway.

> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -111,8 +111,9 @@ static inline void copy_huge_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src)
>  #define hugetlb_change_protection(vma, address, end, newprot)
>  
>  #ifndef HPAGE_MASK
> -#define HPAGE_MASK	PAGE_MASK		/* Keep the compiler happy */
> -#define HPAGE_SIZE	PAGE_SIZE
> +/* Keep the compiler happy with some dummy (but BUGgy) values */

That's a quite poor comment.  This?

--- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h~hugetlb-provide-safer-dummy-values-for-hpage_mask-and-hpage_size-fix
+++ a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
@@ -111,7 +111,11 @@ static inline void copy_huge_page(struct
 #define hugetlb_change_protection(vma, address, end, newprot)
 
 #ifndef HPAGE_MASK
-/* Keep the compiler happy with some dummy (but BUGgy) values */
+/*
+ * HPAGE_MASK and friends are defined if !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE as an
+ * ifdef-avoiding convenience.  However they should never be evaluated at
+ * runtime if !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE.
+ */
 #define HPAGE_MASK	({BUG(); 0; })
 #define HPAGE_SIZE	({BUG(); 0; })
 #define HPAGE_SHIFT	({BUG(); 0; })
_

> +#define HPAGE_MASK	({BUG(); 0; })
> +#define HPAGE_SIZE	({BUG(); 0; })
>  #define HPAGE_SHIFT	({BUG(); 0; })

This change means that HPAGE_* cannot be evaluated at compile time.  So

int foo = HPAGE_SIZE;

outside functions will explode.  I guess that's OK - actually desirable
- as such code shouldn't have been compiled anyway.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/