[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0huVQ+pGgHFNeeoOPAwP4+KiDfBYokVzQ=fUM-QJ+H+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 21:55:51 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Patricia Alfonso <trishalfonso@...gle.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kasan: test: use underlying string helpers
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:47 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 05:00:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > Calling memcmp() and memchr() with an intentional buffer overflow
> > is now caught at compile time:
> >
> > In function 'memcmp',
> > inlined from 'kasan_memcmp' at lib/test_kasan.c:897:2:
> > include/linux/fortify-string.h:263:25: error: call to '__read_overflow' declared with attribute error: detected read beyond size of object (1st parameter)
> > 263 | __read_overflow();
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > In function 'memchr',
> > inlined from 'kasan_memchr' at lib/test_kasan.c:872:2:
> > include/linux/fortify-string.h:277:17: error: call to '__read_overflow' declared with attribute error: detected read beyond size of object (1st parameter)
> > 277 | __read_overflow();
> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Change the kasan tests to wrap those inside of a noinline function
> > to prevent the compiler from noticing the bug and let kasan find
> > it at runtime.
>
> Is this with W=1 ? I had explicitly disabled the read overflows for
> "phase 1" of the overflow restriction tightening...
I have a somewhat modified source tree that builds cleanly with W=1 after
disabling all the noisy ones, so this is probably one that I would not have
seen without it.
> (And what do you think of using OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() instead[1]?
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20211006181544.1670992-1-keescook@chromium.org/T/#u
Yes, that is probably better. I can try updating the patch tomorrow,
unless you do it first.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists