linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] structleak: disable BYREF_ALL in combination with KASAN

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: <CAKv+Gu90nGDYFwdi69centW+yyS16u1QDVNT7C7VcRaCkCaRyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:01:29 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] structleak: disable BYREF_ALL in combination with KASAN_STACK

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 22:26, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 03:50:02PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:44, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > One pattern I have seen here is temporary variables from macros or
> > > inline functions whose lifetime now extends over the entire function
> > > rather than just the basic block in which they are defined, see e.g.
> > > lpfc_debug_dump_qe() being inlined multiple times into
> > > lpfc_debug_dump_all_queues(). Each instance of the local
> > > "char line_buf[LPFC_LBUF_SZ];" seems to add on to the previous
> > > one now, where the behavior without the structleak plugin is that
> > > they don't.
>
> Ewww.
>
> > Right, that seems to be due to the fact that this code
> >
> > /* split the first bb where we can put the forced initializers */
> > gcc_assert(single_succ_p(ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN(cfun)));
> > bb = single_succ(ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN(cfun));
> > if (!single_pred_p(bb)) {
> >     split_edge(single_succ_edge(ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN(cfun)));
> >     gcc_assert(single_succ_p(ENTRY_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN(cfun)));
> > }
> >
> > puts all the initializers at the beginning of the function rather than
> > inside the scope of the definition.
>
> Do you see a sane way to improve this? I hadn't noticed that this
> actually moved it up to the start of the function. :(
>

Not from the top of my head, and I won't be able to spend any time on
this in the near future, unfortunately.