linux-kernel - [PATCH] kunit/fortify: Expand testing of __compiletime

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250312000349.work.786-kees@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 17:03:56 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: [PATCH] kunit/fortify: Expand testing of __compiletime_strlen()

It seems that Clang thinks __builtin_constant_p() of undefined variables
should return true[1]. This is being fixed separately[2], but in the
meantime, expand the fortify tests to help track this kind of thing down
faster in the future.

Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/2073 [1]
Link: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130713 [2]
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
---
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
---
 lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c b/lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c
index ecb638d4cde1..18dcdedf777f 100644
--- a/lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/tests/fortify_kunit.c
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ static int fortify_write_overflows;
 
 static const char array_of_10[] = "this is 10";
 static const char *ptr_of_11 = "this is 11!";
+static const char * const unchanging_12 = "this is 12!!";
 static char array_unknown[] = "compiler thinks I might change";
 
 void fortify_add_kunit_error(int write)
@@ -83,12 +84,28 @@ void fortify_add_kunit_error(int write)
 
 static void fortify_test_known_sizes(struct kunit *test)
 {
+	char stack[80] = "Test!";
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(stack)));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(stack), 5);
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen("88888888")));
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen("88888888"), 8);
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(array_of_10)));
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(array_of_10), 10);
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(ptr_of_11)));
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(ptr_of_11), 11);
 
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(unchanging_12)));
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(unchanging_12), 12);
+
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(array_unknown)));
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(array_unknown), SIZE_MAX);
+
 	/* Externally defined and dynamically sized string pointer: */
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, __is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(test->name)));
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __compiletime_strlen(test->name), SIZE_MAX);
 }
 
-- 
2.34.1