linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 20 (Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)

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: <202108251958.4BA654453@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 20:54:33 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 20 (Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:49:19AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/25/21 10:04 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:58:59AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:24:44 -0700 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > This is just weird. What I am seeing is that for every source file
> > > > where gcc emits a warning: it then follows that up with this
> > > > > > cc1: warning: unrecognized command line option '-Wno-alloc-size-larger-than'
> > > 
> > > I see the same, as well as:
> > > 
> > > <stdin>:1515:2: warning: #warning syscall clone3 not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > > cc1: warning: unrecognized command line option '-Wno-alloc-size-larger-than'
> > > 
> > > But only on my gcc 7.3.1 builds (the rest are gcc 10).
> > > 
> > > > Smells like a gcc bug to me.
> > > 
> > > Yes
> > > 
> > > Also noted here: https://github.com/DynamoRIO/drmemory/issues/2099 (second comment)
> > 
> > Okay, I think this work-around should work. I've been able to reproduce
> > the weird conditions, and this seems to behave correctly. Andrew, can
> > you fixup the fixup with this?
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index 26640899e7ca..c1842014a5de 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -1094,8 +1094,13 @@ endif
> >   ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
> >   # The allocators already balk at large sizes, so silence the compiler
> > -# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values.
> > -KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)
> > +# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values. While
> > +# -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than would normally be used here, some versions
> > +# of gcc (<9.1) weirdly don't handle the option correctly when _other_
> > +# warnings are produced (?!), so instead use SIZE_MAX to effectively
> > +# disable it.
> > +# https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210824115859.187f272f@canb.auug.org.au
> > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -Walloc-size-larger-than=SIZE_MAX)
> >   endif
> >   # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
> > 
> 
> Hi Kees,
> 
> I get a lot of these:
> 
> ../include/linux/slab.h: In function ‘keyctl_instantiate_key_common’:
> cc1: warning: invalid argument ‘SIZE_MAX’ to ‘-Walloc-size-larger-than=’

O_o

I love how the documentation on this option is consistently wrong. :)

I haven't been able to exactly reproduce this error on godbolt.org, but
I got close with trunk GCC:
gcc: error: argument to '-Walloc-size-larger-than=' should be a non-negative integer optionally followed by a size unit

Even though stdint.h is included. :(

Okay. How about _this_ fix?

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index efa9bd36b158..141a851930e6 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1096,8 +1096,17 @@ endif
 
 ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
 # The allocators already balk at large sizes, so silence the compiler
-# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values.
-KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)
+# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values. While
+# -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than would normally be used here, earlier versions
+# of gcc (<9.1) weirdly don't handle the option correctly when _other_
+# warnings are produced (?!). Using -Walloc-size-larger-than=SIZE_MAX
+# doesn't work (as it is documented to), silently resolving to "0" prior to
+# version 9.1 (and producing an error more recently). Numeric values larger
+# than PTRDIFF_MAX also don't work prior to version 9.1, which are silently
+# ignored, continuing to default to PTRDIFF_MAX. So, left with no other
+# choice, we must perform a versioned check to disable this warning.
+# https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210824115859.187f272f@canb.auug.org.au
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 0901, -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)
 endif
 
 # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers


-- 
Kees Cook