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  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:   Tue, 5 May 2020 18:02:18 +0200
From:   Jürgen Groß <>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <>,
        Stefano Stabellini <>,
        Yan Yankovskyi <>, Wei Liu <>,
        xen-devel <>,
        "" <>,
        clang-built-linux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xenbus: avoid stack overflow warning

On 05.05.20 17:01, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:34 PM Jürgen Groß <> wrote:
>> On 05.05.20 16:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The __xenbus_map_ring() function has two large arrays, 'map' and
>>> 'unmap' on its stack. When clang decides to inline it into its caller,
>>> xenbus_map_ring_valloc_hvm(), the total stack usage exceeds the warning
>>> limit for stack size on 32-bit architectures.
>>> drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_client.c:592:12: error: stack frame size of 1104 bytes in function 'xenbus_map_ring_valloc_hvm' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than=]
>>> As far as I can tell, other compilers don't inline it here, so we get
>>> no warning, but the stack usage is actually the same. It is possible
>>> for both arrays to use the same location on the stack, but the compiler
>>> cannot prove that this is safe because they get passed to external
>>> functions that may end up using them until they go out of scope.
>>> Move the two arrays into separate basic blocks to limit the scope
>>> and force them to occupy less stack in total, regardless of the
>>> inlining decision.
>> Why don't you put both arrays into a union?
> I considered that as well, and don't really mind either way. I think it does
> get a bit ugly whatever we do. If you prefer the union, I can respin the
> patch that way.

Hmm, thinking more about it I think the real clean solution would be to
extend struct map_ring_valloc_hvm to cover the pv case, too, to add the
map and unmap arrays (possibly as a union) to it and to allocate it
dynamically instead of having it on the stack.

Would you be fine doing this?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists