linux-kernel - Re: [patch 9/9] mm/vmalloc: add __alloc_size attributes for better bounds checking

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202109211630.2D00627@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:37:27 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, apw@...onical.com,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, dwaipayanray1@...il.com,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [patch 9/9] mm/vmalloc: add __alloc_size attributes for better
 bounds checking

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:23:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 8:10 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > +__alloc_size(1)
> >  extern void *vmalloc(unsigned long size);
> [...]
> 
> All of these are added in the wrong place - inconsistent with the very
> compiler documentation the patches add.
> 
> The function attributes are generally added _after_ the function,
> although admittedly we've been quite confused here before.
> 
> But the very compiler documentation you point to in the patch that
> adds these macros gives that as the examples both for gcc and clang:
> 
> + *   gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-alloc_005fsize-function-attribute
> + * clang: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#alloc-size
> 
> and honestly I think that is the preferred format because this is
> about the *function*, not about the return type.
> 
> Do both placements work? Yes.

I'm cleaning this up now, and have discovered that the reason for the
before-function placement is consistency with static inlines. If I do this:

static __always_inline void * kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags) __alloc_size(1)
{
	...
}

GCC is very angry:

./include/linux/slab.h:519:1: error: attributes should be specified before the declarator in a function definition
  519 | static __always_inline void *kmalloc_large(size_t size, gfp_t flags) __alloc_size(1)
      | ^~~~~~

It's happy if I treat it as a "return type attribute" in the ordering,
though:

static __always_inline void * __alloc_size(1) kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)

I'll do that unless you have a preference for somewhere else...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook