[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3c67fdd6-bce9-f695-a6c5-0fe9209bd3e4@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:45:57 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
Joan Bruguera Micó <joanbrugueram@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alyssa Ross <hi@...ssa.is>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/purgatory: Do not use fortified string functions
On 5/30/23 17:33, Kees Cook wrote:
> With the addition of -fstrict-flex-arrays=3, struct sha256_state's
> trailing array is no longer ignored by CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE:
>
> struct sha256_state {
> u32 state[SHA256_DIGEST_SIZE / 4];
> u64 count;
> u8 buf[SHA256_BLOCK_SIZE];
> };
>
> This means that the memcpy() calls with "buf" as a destination in
> sha256.c's code will attempt to perform run-time bounds checking, which
> could lead to calling missing functions, specifically a potential
> WARN_ONCE, which isn't callable from purgatory.
>
> Reported-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/175578ec-9dec-7a9c-8d3a-43f24ff86b92@leemhuis.info/
> Bisected-by: "Joan Bruguera Micó" <joanbrugueram@...il.com>
> Fixes: df8fc4e934c1 ("kbuild: Enable -fstrict-flex-arrays=3")
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Hi Folks,
The -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 commit isn't upstream yet, right? That makes
it a _bit_ wonky for us to carry this on the x86 side since among other
things, the Fixes commit doesn't exist. I'd be fine if this goes up
along with the -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 code, so:
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
We could also pick it up from the x86 side, but I think that would need
a _bit_ of a different commit message to allude to it being to prepare
for the _future_ setting of -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 and having no
practical benefits now.
Let me know if you don't want to send this up with the
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 set.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists