linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390: disable -Warray-bounds

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:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 11:13:42 +0200
From:   Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: disable -Warray-bounds

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:54:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 03:43:08PM +0200, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> > gcc-12 shows a lot of array bound warnings on s390. This is caused
> > by our S390_lowcore macro:
> > 
> > which uses an hardcoded address of 0. Wrapping that with
> > absolute_pointer() works, but gcc no longer knows that a 12 bit
> > instruction is sufficient to access lowcore. So it emits instructions
> > like 'lghi %r1,0; l %rx,xxx(%r1)' instead of a single load/store
> > instruction. As s390 stores variables often read/written in lowcore,
> > this is considered problematic. Therefore disable -Warray-bounds on
> > s390 for now until there is a better real solution.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
> 
> It looks like the source of this problem (the literal-values-treated-as-NULL)
> is gcc-12 specific. From the discussions, it sounded like Jacob was
> going to fix this "correctly" in gcc-13. It might be a good idea to make
> this version-checked? (i.e. only disable on gcc-12)

That makes sense, so we still get at least some coverage for compilers
< gcc 12; and also latest clang still seems to do the right thing.

Sven, could you either send an updated patch, or an addon patch,
please? Whatever you prefer.