linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1] copy_{to,from}_user(): only inline when !__CHECKER_

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:   Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:46:00 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc:     linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] copy_{to,from}_user(): only inline when !__CHECKER__

On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 02:25:23PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:

> > Which sparse checks do not trigger?  Explain, please - as it is, I had been
> > unable to guess what could "specifically looks for a call instruction" refer
> > to.
> 
> In sparse.c there's check_call_instruction(), which is triggered when
> there's an instruction of OP_CALL type in the basic block. This simply
> compares against the name of the call target to determine whether or
> not to call check_ctu().

Oh, that Linus' experiment with "look for huge constant size argument
to memcpy() et.al."?  Frankly, it's not only the wrong place to put the
checks, but breaking inlining loses the _real_ "known constant size"
checks in there.

I don't know if the check_ctu thing has ever caught a bug...  What kind of
checks do you want to add?  Because this place is almost certainly wrong
for anything useful...

If anything, I would suggest simulating this behaviour with something like
	if (__builtin_constant_p(size) && size > something)
		/* something that would trigger a warning */
_inside_ copy_from_user()/copy_to_user() and to hell with name-recognizing
magic...