[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202305101223.B940A881@keescook>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 12:24:38 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>,
Puyou Lu <puyou.lu@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] kunit: tool: Enable CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE under
UML
On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 04:42:27PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 4:33 PM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 12:27 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since commit ba38961a069b ("um: Enable FORTIFY_SOURCE"), it's possible
> > > to run the FORTIFY tests under UML. Enable CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE when
> > > running with --altests to gain additional coverage, and by default under
> >
> > two L's in alltest?
>
> Also, while testing this series:
> ```
> $ LLVM=1 ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run
> ...
> [16:40:09] ================== fortify (24 subtests) ===================
> [16:40:09] [PASSED] known_sizes_test
> [16:40:09] [PASSED] control_flow_split_test
> [16:40:09] [PASSED] alloc_size_kmalloc_const_test
> [16:40:09] # alloc_size_kmalloc_dynamic_test: EXPECTATION FAILED
> at lib/fortify_kunit.c:249
> [16:40:09] Expected __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1) == expected, but
> [16:40:09] __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1) == -1
> (0xffffffffffffffff)
> [16:40:09] expected == 11 (0xb)
> [16:40:09] __alloc_size() not working with __bdos on kmemdup("hello
> there", len, gfp)
I'm still tracking this down. I'm not sure what's happening here, but it
seems to be Clang-specific, and due to some interaction with the changes
I made for Kunit examination. WHY it happens I haven't found yet.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists