linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Handle R_RISCV

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <mhng-5cb86075-42ca-4d7a-906b-599072a6484c@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To:     schwab@...e.de
CC:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: Handle R_RISCV_32 in modules

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:54:00 PDT (-0700), schwab@...e.de wrote:
> On Jun 08 2018, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2018 03:27:27 PDT (-0700), schwab@...e.de wrote:
>>> With CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y the R_RISCV_32 relocation is used by the
>>> __kcrctab section.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/module.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>>> index 5dddba301d..1d5e9b934b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/module.c
>>> @@ -17,6 +17,17 @@
>>>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>>>  #include <linux/moduleloader.h>
>>>
>>> +static int apply_r_riscv_32_rela(struct module *me, u32 *location, Elf_Addr v)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (v != (u32)v) {
>>
>> My worry with this kind of check is that it relies on some sort of
>> undefined behavior in C and that at some point in the future GCC will just
>> go decide the check can never fail.  I checked and GCC doesn't elide these
>> checks now, so I might be wrong.
>>
>> Is this defined to do what it looks like it's doing?
>
> This is unsigned arithmetic, thus fully defined.

Great, thanks!  I guess I'm just a bit paranoid :)