linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: lib: use C string functions with KASAN enabled.

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:06:31 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kyeongdon Kim <kyeongdon.kim@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: lib: use C string functions with KASAN enabled.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:53:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:33:22PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 06:48:10PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > > On 09/07/2018 05:56 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > I don't understand this bit: efistub uses the __pi_ prefixed
> > > > versions of the routines, so why do we need to declare them as weak?
> > > 
> > > Weak needed because we can't have two non-weak functions with the same
> > > name.
> > > 
> > > Alternative approach would be to never use e.g. "strlen" name for asm
> > > implementation of strlen() under CONFIG_KASAN=y.  But that would
> > > require adding some special ENDPIPROC_KASAN() macro since we want
> > > __pi_strlen() to point to the asm_strlen().
> > 
> > Somehow, what we have today works with CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, which
> > AFAICT would suffer from texactly the same problem with things like
> > memcpy.
> > 
> > So either we're getting away with that by chance already (and should fix
> > that regardless of this patch), or this is not actually a problem.
> 
> I now see those functions are marked weak in the assembly
> implementation; sorry for the noise.
> 
> Regardless, I still think it's preferable to avoid weak wherever
> possible.

I was thinking along the same lines, but having played around with the code,
I agree with Andrey that this appears to be the cleanest solution.

Andrey -- could you respin using WEAK instead of .weak, removing any
redundant uses of ENTRY in the process? We might also need to throw an
ALIGN directive into the WEAK definition.

Will