linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: More updates for 6.13

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: <193780f6880.28a7.85c95baa4474aabc7814e68940a78392@paul-moore.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:14:56 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: More updates for 6.13

On November 28, 2024 9:17:31 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 7:23 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2024 15:51:20 -0500
>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I've pushed out my resolution, and hopefully rust people can actually
>>>> test it. I might just be full of it.
>>>
>>> Looks better than what I had. I'll kick my tests on it just as a sanity
>>> check.
>>
>> And my tests failed. But not for this change. The build failed. Config 
>> attached:
>>
>> CC      kernel/time/tick-broadcast.o
>> In file included from 
>> /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/string.h:390,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/bitmap.h:13,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/smp.h:13,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/lockdep.h:14,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/spinlock.h:63,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/wait.h:9,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/fs.h:6,
>>         from /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/kernel/auditsc.c:37:
>> In function ‘sized_strscpy’,
>> inlined from ‘__audit_ptrace’ at 
>> /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/kernel/auditsc.c:2732:2:
>> /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/fortify-string.h:293:17: 
>> error: call to ‘__write_overflow’ declared with attribute error: detected 
>> write beyond size of object (1st parameter)
>> 293 |                 __write_overflow();
>> |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> CC      arch/x86/kernel/tracepoint.o
>> In function ‘sized_strscpy’,
>> inlined from ‘audit_signal_info_syscall’ at 
>> /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/kernel/auditsc.c:2759:3:
>> /work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/include/linux/fortify-string.h:293:17: 
>> error: call to ‘__write_overflow’ declared with attribute error: detected 
>> write beyond size of object (1st parameter)
>> 293 |                 __write_overflow();
>> |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> AR      drivers/nvmem/built-in.a
>> make[4]: *** 
>> [/work/build/trace/nobackup/linux-test.git/scripts/Makefile.build:229: 
>> kernel/auditsc.o] Error 1
>>
>> I'm currently too busy eating turkey, so I'll let someone else figure this out.
>
> The issue appears to be a known GCC bug, though the root cause remains
> unclear at this time.
>
> A potential workaround has been proposed, which you can find here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/202410171059.C2C395030@keescook/
>
> However, it seems that the patch has not yet been accepted into the mainline.

I didn't pull that into the audit tree because it isn't a real patch. 
Looking at it again on my phone before today's holiday stuff kicks off, I 
don't have a problem with the workaround, but i do need to see it as a 
proper patch with a commit description, sign off, etc. before I can merge it.

For anyone who is going to put together a patch, please make it clear that 
it is a compiler bug and provide the associated bug report links.

--
paul-moore.com