linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/uaccess: Use 'unsigned long' to placate UBSAN warnings, again

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:06:57 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        dvyukov@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/uaccess: Use 'unsigned long' to placate UBSAN
 warnings, again

On 1/6/21 3:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:04:54PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> GCC 7 has a known bug where UBSAN ignores '-fwrapv' and generates false
>>> signed-overflow-UB warnings.  The type mismatch between 'i' and
>>> 'nr_segs' in copy_compat_iovec_from_user() is causing such a warning,
>>> which also happens to violate uaccess rules:
>>>
>>>   lib/iov_iter.o: warning: objtool: iovec_from_user()+0x22d: call to __ubsan_handle_add_overflow() with UACCESS enabled
>>>
>>> Fix it by making the variable types match.
>>>
>>> This is similar to a previous commit:
>>>
>>>   29da93fea3ea ("mm/uaccess: Use 'unsigned long' to placate UBSAN warnings on older GCC versions")
>>
>> Maybe it's time we make UBSAN builds depend on GCC-8+ ?
> 
> I would be totally fine with that. The only thing I can think of that
> might care is syzbot. Dmitry, does syzbot use anything older than gcc 8?

I use UBSAN successfully with GCC 7.5.0.
However, I can revert whatever future patch someone adds for this...

-- 
~Randy