linux-kernel - [PATCH] lkdtm: fix maybe-uninitialized warning

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]

Date:	Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:28:08 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] lkdtm: fix maybe-uninitialized warning

The do_usercopy_stack() function uses uninitialized stack data to initialize
more of the stack, which causes a warning in some configurations (ARM allmodconfig):

drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c:52:15: warning: 'bad_stack' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]

The warning gets reports by Mark Brown's build bot and looks correct (we are trying
to trick the compiler here, and sometimes the compiler notices), and I could reproduce
it with gcc-4.7 through gcc-5.3 but not gcc-6.1 for some reason.

This changes the code to use the low byte of the address of the stack to initialize
the stack data, instead of using data from the stack itself, to avoid the warning.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Fixes: a3dff71c1c88 ("lkdtm: split usercopy tests to separate file")
---
 drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c b/drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c
index 5a3fd76eec27..5525a204db93 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/lkdtm_usercopy.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static noinline void do_usercopy_stack(bool to_user, bool bad_frame)

 	/* This is a pointer to outside our current stack frame. */
 	if (bad_frame) {
-		bad_stack = do_usercopy_stack_callee((uintptr_t)bad_stack);
+		bad_stack = do_usercopy_stack_callee((uintptr_t)&bad_stack);
 	} else {
 		/* Put start address just inside stack. */
 		bad_stack = task_stack_page(current) + THREAD_SIZE;
-- 
2.9.0