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: <CA+55aFwO8KZD_tZwqwL05FbzpKW4Ucd88C0tcR7LJ1utuy3WGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 16:26:52 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     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 Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hmm. So thanks to the diseased mind of Martin Uecker, there's a better
> test for "__is_constant()":
>
>   /* Glory to Martin Uecker <Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de> */
>   #define __is_constant(a) \
>         (sizeof(int) == sizeof(*(1 ? ((void*)((a) * 0l)) : (int*)1)))
>
> that is actually *specified* by the C standard to work, and doesn't
> even depend on any gcc extensions.

Well, it does depend on 'sizeof(*(void *)X)' being 1 and the compiler
not complaining about it, and that sizeof(int) is not 1.

But since we depend on those things in the kernel anyway, that's fine.

                Linus