[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jK68J6xHMva1p6aM0ZoQDyY0QiEV3qW3K8UDoK-OeP5Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:51:18 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: rishabhb@...eaurora.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-arm Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
tsoni@...eaurora.org, ckadabi@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: usercopy_warn in __copy_to_user
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:51 AM <rishabhb@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
>
> In the 4.19 kernel, we are seeing a USERCOPY_WARN in __copy_to_user
> during bootup.
> The code-flow is something like this:
>
> (arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c)
> struct sigset_t *set;
> __copy_to_user(&sf->uc.uc_sigmask, set, sizeof(*set))
>
> (include/linux/uaccess.h)
> __copy_to_user(void __user *to, const void *from, unsigned long n)
> {
> might_fault();
> kasan_check_read(from, n);
> check_object_size(from, n, true);
> return raw_copy_to_user(to, from, n);
> }
>
> (include/linux/thread_info.h)
> static __always_inline void check_object_size(const void *ptr,
> unsigned long n, bool to_user)
> {
> if (!__builtin_constant_p(n))
> __check_object_size(ptr, n, to_user);
> }
>
> Since sizeof(*set) is constant, __builtin_constant_p(n) should return
> true.
> But we are seeing that its returning the value as false. Because of
> which
> the code goes on to __check_object_size and generates a USERCOPY_WARN
> ("usercopy: WARN() on slab cache usercopy
> region violations").
>
> We are using LLVM clang version 6.0 to compile the kernel and not gcc.
This is fixed in the latest LLVM and Clang:
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/7
-Kees
> In clang, __builtin_constant_p is evaluated immediately, before inlining
> or other optimizations run, gcc evaluates it later.
> We believe that maybe causing __builtin_constant_p(n) to return false.
> There’s upstream work to change LLVM, so __builtin_constant_p works more
> like gcc when optimization is enabled, but its still in progress.
>
>
> For this scenario is there a way to avoid the warning? Should the code
> be
> written in a different to avoid dependency on compiler?
>
> Thanks,
> Rishabh
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists