[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735qbmlzq.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 20:42:49 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] raise minimum GCC version to 5.1
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 04:40:37PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>> commit fad7cd3310db ("nbd: add the check to prevent overflow in
>> __nbd_ioctl()")
>>
>> raised an issue from the fallback helpers added in
>>
>> commit f0907827a8a9 ("compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code")
>>
>> Specifically, the helpers for checking whether the results of a
>> multiplication overflowed (__unsigned_mul_overflow,
>> __signed_add_overflow) use the division operator when
>> !COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW. This is problematic for 64b
>> operands on 32b hosts.
>>
>> Also, because the macro is type agnostic, it is very difficult to write
>> a similarly type generic macro that dispatches to one of:
>> * div64_s64
>> * div64_u64
>> * div_s64
>> * div_u64
>
> Given that it's all compile-time type-aware goo, this isn't so bad. The
> gist[1] you linked off the bug report is pretty close. Needs some
> bikeshedding. ;)
>
>> Raising the minimum supported versions allows us to remove all of the
>> fallback helpers for !COMPILER_HAS_GENERIC_BUILTIN_OVERFLOW, instead
>> dispatching the compiler builtins.
>>
>> arm64 has already raised the minimum supported GCC version to 5.1, do
>> this for all targets now. See the link below for the previous
>> discussion.
>
> That said, I'd much prefer raising the minimum GCC -- no one appears
> to actually be building on 4.9 -- there are close to 200 errors (neƩ
> warnings) on x86_64 allmodconfig there currently.
I still do 4.9 builds on kisskb, but I agree there are a lot of
warnings, and no one ever has time to fix any.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists