linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1501517853.2466.12.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:17:35 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "monis@...lanox.com" <monis@...lanox.com>,
        "Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>,
        "sean.hefty@...el.com" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        "danielmicay@...il.com" <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        "Ariel.Elior@...ium.com" <Ariel.Elior@...ium.com>,
        "hal.rosenstock@...il.com" <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "noaos@...lanox.com" <noaos@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: avoid overflow warning

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 18:04 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com> wrote:
> > So inetaddr_event() assigns AF_INET so .sin_family and gcc warns about code
> > that is only executed if .sin_family == AF_INET6? Since this warning is the
> > result of incorrect interprocedural analysis by gcc, shouldn't this be
> > reported as a bug to the gcc authors?
> 
> I think the interprocedural analysis here is just a little worse than it could
> be, but it's not actually correct.  It's not gcc that prints the warning (if
> it did, then I'd agree it would be a gcc bug) but the warning is triggered
> intentionally by the fortified version of memcpy in include/linux/string.h.
> 
> The problem as I understand it is that gcc cannot guarantee that it
> tracks the value of addr->sa_family at  least as far as the size of the
> stack object, and it has no strict reason to do so, so the inlined
> rdma_ip2gid() will still contain both cases.

Hello Arnd,

Had you already considered to uninline the rdma_ip2gid() function?

Bart.