[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:26:43 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alexandre Bounine <alex.bou9@...il.com>,
Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@...wei.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc_size warning
On 9/9/21 13:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
...
>> include/linux/thread_info.h:213:4: error: call to '__bad_copy_to' declared with attribute error: copy destination size is too small
>> 213 | __bad_copy_to();
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> But the allocation size and the copy size are identical:
>>
>> transfer = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count));
>> if (!transfer)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> if (unlikely(copy_from_user(transfer,
>> (void __user *)(uintptr_t)transaction.block,
>> array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count)))) {
>
> That's an "error", not a warning. Or is this thanks to the new -Werror?
>
> Either way, I'm inclined to cc:stable on this, because use of gcc-9 on
> older kernels will be a common thing down the ages.
>
> If it's really an "error" on non-Werror kernels then definitely cc:stable.
>
It looks like a hard error, not a warning upgraded by -Werror: I did a local
repro, then ran with V=1, removed all -Werror parts of the gcc invocation,
ran again, and still reproduced the error.
I also verified that the patch causes the error to go away.
Also, I can't find anything wrong with the diffs, so:
Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists