[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:18:33 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, rostedt@...dmis.org, corbet@....net,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba
<dsterba@...e.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Alexey
Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Masahiro
Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Randy
Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, Sergey
Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, Petr Mladek
<pmladek@...e.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in
min()/max()
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:40:45 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
> (e.g. "char foo[max(sizeof(struct1), sizeof(struct2))]", the compiler
> thinks this is a dynamic calculation due to the single-eval logic, which
> is not needed in the literal case. This change removes several accidental
> stack VLAs from an x86 allmodconfig build:
>
> $ diff -u before.txt after.txt | grep ^-
> -drivers/input/touchscreen/cyttsp4_core.c:871:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘ids’ [-Wvla]
> -fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c:344:4: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘namebuf’ [-Wvla]
> -lib/vsprintf.c:747:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘sym’ [-Wvla]
> -net/ipv4/proc.c:403:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla]
> -net/ipv6/proc.c:198:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff’ [-Wvla]
> -net/ipv6/proc.c:218:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’ [-Wvla]
>
> Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -787,37 +787,57 @@ static inline void ftrace_dump(enum ftrace_dump_mode oops_dump_mode) { }
> * strict type-checking.. See the
> * "unnecessary" pointer comparison.
> */
> -#define __min(t1, t2, min1, min2, x, y) ({ \
> +#define __single_eval_min(t1, t2, min1, min2, x, y) ({ \
> t1 min1 = (x); \
> t2 min2 = (y); \
> (void) (&min1 == &min2); \
> min1 < min2 ? min1 : min2; })
>
> +/*
> + * In the case of builtin constant values, there is no need to do the
> + * double-evaluation protection, so the raw comparison can be made.
> + * This allows min()/max() to be used in stack array allocations and
> + * avoid the compiler thinking it is a dynamic value leading to an
> + * accidental VLA.
> + */
> +#define __min(t1, t2, x, y) \
> + __builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(x) && \
> + __builtin_constant_p(y) && \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(t1, t2), \
> + (t1)(x) < (t2)(y) ? (t1)(x) : (t2)(y), \
> + __single_eval_min(t1, t2, \
> + __UNIQUE_ID(max1_), \
> + __UNIQUE_ID(max2_), \
> + x, y))
> +
Holy crap.
I suppose gcc will one day be fixed and we won't need this.
Is there a good reason to convert min()? Surely nobody will be using
min to dimension an array - always max? Just for symmetry, I guess.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
