linux-kernel - xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and

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:   Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:51:21 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Igor Lubashev <ilubashe@...mai.com>,
        Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>,
        Vishwanath Pai <vpai@...mai.com>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: xt_hashlimig build error (was Re: [RFC 01/17] x86/asm/64: Remove the
 restore_c_regs_and_iret label)

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> not the best of kernels, 32-bit allyesconfig doesn't even appear to build:
>
>   net/netfilter/xt_hashlimit.o: In function `hashlimit_mt_common.isra.6':
>   xt_hashlimit.c:(.text+0x1146): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'

I think this is due to commit bea74641e378 ("netfilter: xt_hashlimit:
add rate match mode").

It adds a 64-bit divide in user2rate_bytes() afaik, and to make things
worse it seems to be a really stupid one too.

Although I guess "worse" is not bad when the stupidity of it should
mean that it's easy to avoid the 64-bit issue.

Oddly, user2rate() that actually *does* need a 64-bit divide, seems to
do it right and use "div64_u64()" to do so.

But user2rate_bytes() could easily avoid any 64-bit issues, since it
divides the max 32-bit (unsigned) number with a 64-bit unsigned
number.

It would be easy to just say

 - "if high 32 bits are set, result is 0"

 - else do a 32-bit divide

or just use "div64_u64()" in that code too.

But honestly, that math is odd in other ways too (is that "r-1"
_supposed_ to underflow to -1 for large 'user' counts?), so somebody
needs to look at that logic.

And there might be some other 64-bit divide I missed, so please,
netfilter people, check the 32-bit build.

                  Linus