linux-kernel - Re: lib/crypto/chacha.c:65:1: warning: the frame size of 1604 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes

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: <202008271138.0FA7400@keescook>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:42:07 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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 10:55:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

Do you mean you checked both gcc and clang and it was only a problem with gcc?
(If so, I can tweak the "depends" below...)

This should let us avoid it, I'm currently testing:

diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.ubsan b/lib/Kconfig.ubsan
index 774315de555a..24091315c251 100644
--- a/lib/Kconfig.ubsan
+++ b/lib/Kconfig.ubsan
@@ -47,6 +47,19 @@ config UBSAN_BOUNDS
 	  to the {str,mem}*cpy() family of functions (that is addressed
 	  by CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE).
 
+config UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
+	bool "Check for accesses beyond known object sizes"
+	default UBSAN
+	depends on !COMPILE_TEST
+	help
+	  This option enables detection of cases where accesses may
+	  happen beyond the end of an object's size, which happens in
+	  places like invalid downcasts, or calling function pointers
+	  through invalid pointers.
+
+	  This uses much more stack space, and isn't recommended for
+	  cases were stack utilization depth is a concern.
+
 config UBSAN_MISC
 	bool "Enable all other Undefined Behavior sanity checks"
 	default UBSAN
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.ubsan b/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
index 27348029b2b8..3ff67e9b17fd 100644
--- a/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
+++ b/scripts/Makefile.ubsan
@@ -7,12 +7,15 @@ ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=bounds)
 endif
 
+ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_OBJECT_SIZE
+      CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=object-size)
+endif
+
 ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_MISC
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=shift)
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero)
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=unreachable)
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow)
-      CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=object-size)
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=bool)
       CFLAGS_UBSAN += $(call cc-option, -fsanitize=enum)
 endif

-- 
Kees Cook