Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 21:05:48 +0200
From:   Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: Protect INET_ADDR_COOKIE on 32-bit
 architectures

On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:59:14 -0700, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:13:22 +0200 Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020 20:50:25 -0700, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> > wrote:  
> > > On Fri,  8 May 2020 14:04:57 +0200 Stephen Kitt wrote:    
> > > > Commit c7228317441f ("net: Use a more standard macro for
> > > > INET_ADDR_COOKIE") added a __deprecated marker to the cookie name on
> > > > 32-bit architectures, with the intent that the compiler would flag
> > > > uses of the name. However since commit 771c035372a0 ("deprecate the
> > > > '__deprecated' attribute warnings entirely and for good"),
> > > > __deprecated doesn't do anything and should be avoided.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch changes INET_ADDR_COOKIE to declare a dummy struct so that
> > > > any subsequent use of the cookie's name will in all likelihood break
> > > > the build. It also removes the __deprecated marker.    
> > > 
> > > I think the macro is supposed to cause a warning when the variable
> > > itself is accessed. And I don't think that happens with your patch
> > > applied.    
> > 
> > Yes, the warning is what was lost when __deprecated lost its meaning. I
> > was trying to preserve that, or rather extend it so that the build would
> > break if the cookie was used on 32-bit architectures, and my patch
> > ensures it does if the cookie is used in a comparison or assignment,
> > but ... 
> > > +       kfree(&acookie);    
> > 
> > I hadn’t thought of taking a pointer to it.
> > 
> > If we want to preserve the use of the macro with a semi-colon, which is
> > what Joe’s patch introduced (along with the deprecation warning), we
> > still need some sort of declaration which can’t be used. Perhaps
> > 
> > #define INET_ADDR_COOKIE(__name, __saddr, __daddr) \
> > 	struct __name {} __attribute__((unused))
> > 
> > would be better — it declares the cookie as a struct, not a variable, so
> > then the build fails if the cookie is used as anything other than a
> > struct. If anyone does try to use it as a struct, the build will fail on
> > 64-bit architectures...
> > 
> >   CC      net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.o
> > net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c: In function ‘__inet_lookup_established’:
> > net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c:362:9: error: ‘acookie’ undeclared (first use
> > in this function) kfree(&acookie);
> >          ^~~~~~~
> > net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c:362:9: note: each undeclared identifier is
> > reported only once for each function it appears in make[2]: ***
> > [scripts/Makefile.build:267: net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.o] Error 1 make[1]:
> > *** [scripts/Makefile.build:488: net/ipv4] Error 2 make: ***
> > Makefile:1722: net] Error 2  
> 
> Hm. That does seem better. Although thinking about it - we will not get
> a warning when someone declares a variable with the same name..

Good point!

> What if we went back to your original proposal of an empty struct but
> added in an extern in front? That way we should get linker error on
> pointer references.

That silently fails to fail if any other link object provides a definition
for the symbol, even if the type doesn’t match...

I thought of

	register struct {} __name __attribute__((unused))

but that really feels like tacking on more stuff to handle cases as we think
of them, which makes me wonder what cases I’m not thinking of.

Regards,

Stephen

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists