linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 20 (objtool warnings)

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: <CAAeHK+xS-EGjoz0467cXW6P5MQW0+s65gAh96tqZThxyZiJZrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 00:02:55 +0100
From:   Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 20 (objtool warnings)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:13 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:53:05AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >> kernel/kcov.o: warning: objtool: __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc()+0x89: call to __ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value() with UACCESS enabled
> > >>
> >
> > config-r1510 is attached.
> > and kcov.o is attached.
>
> I'm thinking this is because of commit:
>
>   0d6958a70483 kcov: collect coverage from interrupts
>
> Which has:
>
> @@ -1230,6 +1230,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>
> +       bool                            kcov_softirq;
>
> @@ -145,9 +157,10 @@ static notrace bool check_kcov_mode(enum kcov_mode needed_mode, struct task_stru
>
> +       if (!in_task() && !(in_serving_softirq() && t->kcov_softirq))
>
> And this __ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value() is verifying a bool is 0,1.
>
> Another reason to hate on _Bool I suppose...
>
> Let me see what to do about that... :/

Hm, let's turn it into an unsigned int if bool causes a problem? I can
send a patch.