linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubsan: don't mark __ubsan_handle_builtin

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: <CAK8P3a124Jdza9YbgOHECC2owpx_HmOuDMWtotxuC2-F9L9Cgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Feb 2018 11:15:35 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubsan: don't mark __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable as noreturn

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/02/2018 06:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> gcc-8 complains about the prototype for this function:
>>
>> lib/ubsan.c:432:1: error: ignoring attribute 'noreturn' in declaration of a built-in function '__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable' because it conflicts with attribute 'const' [-Werror=attributes]
>>
>
> That's actually a bug in GCC. In GCC __ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable declared
> with 'noreturn' and 'const' attributes:
>
> DEF_SANITIZER_BUILTIN(BUILT_IN_UBSAN_HANDLE_BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE,
>                       "__ubsan_handle_builtin_unreachable",
>                       BT_FN_VOID_PTR,
>                       ATTR_COLD_CONST_NORETURN_NOTHROW_LEAF_LIST)
>
>
> But const attribute doesn't make any sense for function that returns void or doesn't return at all.
> Given that gcc-8 has not released yet, it would be better to fix this bug there.

Ok. Should I open a gcc bug, or will you take care of it?

       Arnd