linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] crypto/caam: Avoid GCC constprop bug warning

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:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:01:50 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Anders Roxell' <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:     Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
        Gaurav Jain <gaurav.jain@....com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel test robot" <lkp@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] crypto/caam: Avoid GCC constprop bug warning

From: Anders Roxell
> Sent: 02 December 2022 00:58
> 
> On 2022-10-28 14:05, Kees Cook wrote:
> > GCC 12 appears to perform constant propagation incompletely(?) and can
> > no longer notice that "len" is always 0 when "data" is NULL. Expand the
> > check to avoid warnings about memcpy() having a NULL argument:
> >
> >    ...
> >                     from drivers/crypto/caam/key_gen.c:8:
> >    drivers/crypto/caam/desc_constr.h: In function 'append_data.constprop':
> >    include/linux/fortify-string.h:48:33: warning: argument 2 null where non-null expected [-
> Wnonnull]
> >       48 | #define __underlying_memcpy     __builtin_memcpy
> >          |                                 ^
> >    include/linux/fortify-string.h:438:9: note: in expansion of macro '__underlying_memcpy'
> >      438 |         __underlying_##op(p, q, __fortify_size);                        \
> >          |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
...

Is this really a bug in the fortify-string wrappers?
IIRC the call is memcpy(NULL, ptr, 0) (or maybe memcpy(ptr, NULL, 0).
In either case call can be removed at compile time.

I'd bet that the constant propagation of 'len' fails because
of all the intermediate variables that get used in order to
avoid multiple evaluation.

The some 'tricks' that are used in min() (see minmax.h) to
generate a constant output for constant input could be
use to detect a compile-time zero length.

Something like:
#define memcpy(dst, src, len) \
	(__is_constzero(len) ? (dst) : memcpy_check(dst, src, len))

With:
#define __is_constzero(x) sizeof(*(1 ? (void *)(x) : (int *)0) != 1)
Which could go into const.h and used in the definition of __is_constexpr().

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)