linux-kernel - Re: Clang __bos vs loop unrolling (was Re: [PATCH] ALSA: asihpi: work around clang-17+ false positive fortify-string 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGG=3QU33tgfN_veiJWooXy2EhfZzUFkJZF3XdjSLE8fFCCkOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 17:20:20 -0800
From: Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, 
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, 
	linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Clang __bos vs loop unrolling (was Re: [PATCH] ALSA: asihpi: work
 around clang-17+ false positive fortify-string warning)

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:39 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 04:03:56PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > My first thought was that clang warns about it here because
> > the 'u16 adapter' declaration limits the index to something
> > smaller than an 'int' or 'long', but changing the type
> > did not get rid of the warning.
>
> Our current theory is that Clang has a bug with
> __builtin_object_size/__builtin_dynamic_object_size when doing loop
> unrolling (or other kinds of execution flow splitting). Some examples:
> https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues?q=label%3A%22loop+unroller%22+
>
> Which is perhaps related to __bos miscalculations:
> https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues?q=label%3A%22%5B__bos%5D+miscalculation%22+
>
The idea that there's a bug with the __b{d}os builtins is
controversial. The consensus among GCC and Clang compiler developers
is that returning *a* valid size, rather than the one asked for, is
okay as long as it doesn't go past the current object's max size. (I
couldn't disagree more.) There are a lot of situations where Clang
reverts to that behavior. I'm working to change that.

-bw