linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove accidental VLA usage

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20180308124913.858b2693a14c25d6dcc66b4a@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:49:13 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        corbet@....net, gustavo@...eddedor.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove accidental VLA usage

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:02:36 -0600 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:30:44PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > This series adds SIMPLE_MAX() to be used in places where a stack array
> > is actually fixed, but the compiler still warns about VLA usage due to
> > confusion caused by the safety checks in the max() macro.
> > 
> > I'm sending these via -mm since that's where I've introduced SIMPLE_MAX(),
> > and they should all have no operational differences.
> 
> What if we instead simplify the max() macro's type checking so that GCC
> can more easily fold the array size constants?  The below patch seems to
> work:
> 
> -/*
> - * min()/max()/clamp() macros that also do
> - * strict type-checking.. See the
> - * "unnecessary" pointer comparison.
> - */
> -#define __min(t1, t2, min1, min2, x, y) ({		\
> -	t1 min1 = (x);					\
> -	t2 min2 = (y);					\
> -	(void) (&min1 == &min2);			\
> -	min1 < min2 ? min1 : min2; })
> +extern long __error_incompatible_types_in_min_macro;
> +extern long __error_incompatible_types_in_max_macro;
> +
> +#define __min(t1, t2, x, y)						\
> +	__builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_types_compatible_p(t1, t2),	\
> +			      (t1)(x) < (t2)(y) ? (t1)(x) : (t2)(y),	\
> +			      (t1)__error_incompatible_types_in_min_macro)

This will move the error detection from compile-time to link-time. 
That's tolerable I guess, but a bit sad and should be flagged in the
changelog at least.