[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210209182423.te43h3mmhtvwi2d7@treble>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:24:23 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
dvyukov@...gle.com, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Require GCC-8+ or Clang to use UBSAN
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:53:37AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 02:09:28PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/14/21 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra 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+ ?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Subject: ubsan: Require GCC-8+ or Clang to use UBSAN
> > >
> > > Just like how we require GCC-8.2 for KASAN due to compiler bugs, require
> > > a sane version of GCC for UBSAN.
> > >
> > > Specifically, before GCC-8 UBSAN doesn't respect -fwrapv and thinks
> > > signed arithmetic is buggered.
> > >
> >
> > Actually removing CONFIG_UBSAN_SIGNED_OVERFLOW would give us the same
> > effect without restricting GCC versions.
>
> Is that preferable? Always happy to remove code, just need some
> justification behind it.
Andrey,
Is Peter's patch acceptable or do you want to do something else?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists