[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgXW=YLxGN0QVpp-1w5GDd2pf1W-FqY15poKzoVfik2qA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:55:32 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
kbuild-all@...ts.01.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lib/crypto/chacha.c:65:1: warning: the frame size of 1604 bytes
is larger than 1024 bytes
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:34 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> How are you guys testing? I have UBSAN and GCOV on, and don't see
> crazy frames on either i386 or x86-64.
Oh, never mind. I also have COMPILE_TEST on, so it ends up disabling
GCOV_PROFILE_ALL and UBSAN_SANITIZE_ALL.
And yeah, this seems to be a gcc bug. It generates a ton of stack
slots for temporaries. It's -fsanitize=object-size that seems to do
it.
And "-fstack-reuse=all" doesn't seem to make any difference.
So I think
(a) our stack size check is good to catch this
(b) gcc and -fsanitize=object-size is basically an unusable combination
and it's not a bug in the kernel.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists