linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Initialization of unused function parameters

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgmezfDP_b93_Hw090vUd-TKb-odZNPhB9L_2vL5pn6kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 10:24:14 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vitaly Buka <vitalybuka@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Initialization of unused function parameters

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 10:11 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe a new function parameter attribute would be nice?

Right, exactly something like this seems reasonable.

> #define __must_init __attribute__((must_init))
> int init (int * __must_init x) {
> // ^ warning: function parameter x marked '__attribute__((must_init))'
> not unconditionally initialized
>   if (stars_dont_align) {
>     return -42;
>   }
>   *x = 42;
>   return 0;
> }
> void foo (void) {  int x; init(&x); /* use of x without fear */ }

Yeah. So for this pattern of uninitialized pass-by-reference
arguments, we'd get the warning in the callee if it's __must_init, and
in the caller if it's not.

Now, I suspect that we have a lot of cases where the initializing
function returns an error, and we currently don't initialize the
pass-by-ref argument in that case.

In a perfect world, we'd have some way to annotate that case too, but
I suspect it gets too complicated both for users and for the compiler.

Error handling in C is ugly, but it's also why we in the kernel have
that ERR_PTR() model that solves the "return *both* an error *and* a
pointer" case. Which is one of the most common cases we have for this
situation.

I suspect that the simple "__must_init" model would work well enough
for us in practice. Yes, it might make us then initialize things
"unnecessarily" in error cases, but that doesn't sound too onerous.

And I think the "__must_init" model makes conceptual sense, in ways
that the "caller has to initialize things even if it is literally
asking another function to initialize the value" model does *not* make
sense.

But hey, I didn't look at just how painful it would really be. This is
all "I _think_ that would work really well for the kernel" without any
actual data to back it up with.

                Linus