netdev - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfrm: work around a clang-19 fortifiy-string false-positive

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <773febee-ace3-4ad6-8ff6-04563dbbb759@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:35:05 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...nel.org>,
 "Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
 "Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>,
 "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
 "Bill Wendling" <morbo@...gle.com>, "Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
 "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@...nel.org>, "Lin Ma" <linma@....edu.cn>,
 "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, "Breno Leitao" <leitao@...ian.org>,
 "Tobias Brunner" <tobias@...ongswan.org>, "Raed Salem" <raeds@...dia.com>,
 Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfrm: work around a clang-19 fortifiy-string false-positive

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, at 19:45, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

> Unfortunately, I have no idea why it is complaining nor why your patch
> resolves it but the combination of FORTIFY_SOURCE and KASAN certainly
> seems like a reasonable place to start looking. I will see if I can come
> up with a smaller reproducer to see if it becomes more obvious why this
> code triggers this warning.

I know at least why my patch avoids the warning -- it removes the
call to memset() that contains the check. Unfortunately that still
doesn't explain what caused it.

      Arnd