linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches

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:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:36:11 +1300
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, dev@...nvswitch.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] treewide: Lift switch variables out of switches

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 8:18 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 04:17:30PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > Can't have:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j;
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > because it can't be turned into:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >               int j = 0; /* not valid C */
> >       case 0:
> >               /* ... */
> >       }
> >
> > but can have e.g.:
> >
> >       switch (i) {
> >       case 0:
> >               {
> >                       int j = 0;
> >                       /* ... */
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> > I think Kees' approach of moving such variable declarations to the
> > enclosing block scope is better than adding another nesting block.
>
> Another nesting level would be bad, but I think this is OK:
>
>         switch (i) {
>         case 0: {
>                 int j = 0;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         case 1: {
>                 void *p = q;
>                 /* ... */
>         }
>         }
>
> I can imagine Kees' patch might have a bad effect on stack consumption,
> unless GCC can be relied on to be smart enough to notice the
> non-overlapping liveness of the vriables and use the same stack slots
> for both.

GCC is reasonable at this. The main issue, though, was most of these
places were using the variables in multiple case statements, so they
couldn't be limited to a single block (or they'd need to be manually
repeated in each block, which is even more ugly, IMO).

Whatever the consensus, I'm happy to tweak the patch.

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook