linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc

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:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:52:27 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.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 Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:11:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:51:23 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 
> > > That's an "error", not a warning.  Or is this thanks to the new -Werror?
> > 
> > This is a "regular" error (__bad_copy_to() uses __compiletime_error()).
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I would expect that as only being needed if __alloc_size was backported
> > to -stable, which seems unlikely.
> 
> Ah.  Changelog didn't tell me that it's an __alloc_size thing.

Er, it's in the Subject, but I guess I could repeat it?

> What's the status of the __alloc_size() patchset, btw?

It's in -next via -mm, and all is well as far as I know:

compiler-attributes-add-__alloc_size-for-better-bounds-checking.patch
compiler-attributes-add-__alloc_size-for-better-bounds-checking-fix.patch
checkpatch-add-__alloc_size-to-known-attribute.patch
slab-clean-up-function-declarations.patch
slab-add-__alloc_size-attributes-for-better-bounds-checking.patch
mm-page_alloc-add-__alloc_size-attributes-for-better-bounds-checking.patch
percpu-add-__alloc_size-attributes-for-better-bounds-checking.patch
mm-vmalloc-add-__alloc_size-attributes-for-better-bounds-checking.patch

FWIW, I had extensively checked (and fixed) warnings from it before sending it
your way. This patch is fixing an error that just appeared from
randconfig.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook