linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

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: <42b4342b-aefc-a16a-0d43-9f9c0d63ba7a@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:13:28 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
        linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On 2018-03-17 19:52, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately my 4.4 test fails quickly:
>>
>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h: In function ‘jiffies_delta_to_clock_t’:
>> ./include/linux/jiffies.h:444: error: first argument to
>> ‘__builtin_choose_expr’ not a constant
> 
> Ok, so it really looks like that same "__builtin_constant_p() doesn't
> return a constant".
> 
> Which is really odd, but there you have it.

Not really. We do rely on builtin_constant_p not being folded too
quickly to a 0/1 answer, so that gcc still generates good code even if
the argument is only known to be constant at a late(r) optimization
stage (through inlining and all). So unlike types_compatible_p, which
can obviously be answered early during parsing, builtin_constant_p is
most of the time a yes/no/maybe/it's complicated thing. Sure, when the
argument is just a literal or perhaps even any kind of ICE, gcc can fold
it to "yes", and I think it does (though the details of when and if gcc
does that can obviously be very version-dependent, which may be some of
what we've seen). But when it's not that obvious, gcc leaves it in the
undetermined state. That's not good enough for builtin_choose_expr,
because even the type of the resulting expression depends on that first
argument, so that really must be resolved early.

So to have some kind of builtin_constant_p control a
builtin_choose_expr, it would need to be a "builtin_ice_p" or
"builtin_obviously_constant_p" that would always be folded to 0/1 as
part of evaluating ICEs.

So I don't think there's any way around creating a separate macro for
use with compile-time constants.

Rasmus