linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: ingenic: Make unreachable path more robust

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]

Message-Id: <1581734224.3.14@crapouillou.net>
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 23:37:04 -0300
From:   Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: ingenic: Make unreachable path more robust



Le ven., févr. 14, 2020 at 14:37, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> 
a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:02:18PM -0300, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>  Hi Josh,
>> 
>> 
>>  Le ven., févr. 14, 2020 at 10:37, Josh Poimboeuf 
>> <jpoimboe@...hat.com> a
>>  écrit :
>>  > In the second loop of ingenic_pinconf_set(), it annotates the 
>> switch
>>  > default case as unreachable().  The annotation is technically 
>> correct,
>>  > because that same case would have resulted in an early return in 
>> the
>>  > previous loop.
>>  >
>>  > However, if a bug were to get introduced later, for example if an
>>  > additional case were added to the first loop without adjusting the
>>  > second loop, it would result in nasty undefined behavior: most 
>> likely
>>  > the function's generated code would fall through to the next 
>> function.
>>  >
>>  > Another issue is that, while objtool normally understands 
>> unreachable()
>>  > annotations, there's one special case where it doesn't: when the
>>  > annotation occurs immediately after a 'ret' instruction.  That 
>> happens
>>  > to be the case here because unreachable() is immediately before 
>> the
>>  > return.
>>  >
>>  > So change the unreachable() to BUG() so that the unreachable 
>> code, if
>>  > ever executed, would panic instead of introducing undefined 
>> behavior.
>>  > This also makes objtool happy.
>> 
>>  I don't like the idea that you change this driver's code just to 
>> work around
>>  a bug in objtool, and I don't like the idea of working around a 
>> future bug
>>  that shouldn't be introduced in the first place.
> 
> It's not an objtool bug.  It's a byproduct of the fact that GCC's
> undefined behavior is inscrutable, and there's no way to determine 
> that
> it actually *wants* to jump to a random function.
> 
> And anyway, regardless of objtool, the patch is meant to make the code
> more robust.
> 
> Do you not agree that BUG (defined behavior) is more robust than
> unreachable (undefined behavior)?

It's a dead code path. That would be an undefined behaviour, if it was 
taken, but it's not.

-Paul