[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:33:21 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 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>,
"Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, 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 <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Remove accidental VLA usage
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> On 8 March 2018 at 21:39, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> However, this works for me:
>>
>> #define __new_max(t1, t2, max1, max2, 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), \
>> __max(t1, t2, max1, max2, x, y))
>>
>> #define new_max(x, y) \
>> __new_max(typeof(x), typeof(y), \
>> __UNIQUE_ID(max1_), __UNIQUE_ID(max2_), \
>> x, y)
>
> Yes, that would seem to do the trick.
>
> Thinking out loud: do we really want or need the
> __builtin_types_compatible condition when x and y are compile-time
> constants? I think it would be nice to be able to use max(16,
> sizeof(bla)) without having to cast either the literal or the sizeof.
> Just omitting the type compatibility check might be dangerous, but
> perhaps it could be relaxed to a check that both values are
> representable in their common promoted type. Something like
>
> (type_signed(t1) == type_signed(t2)) || ((t1)x >= 0 && (t2)y >= 0)
>
> should be safe (if the types have same signedness, or the value of
> signed type is positive), though it doesn't allow a few corner cases
> (e.g. short vs. unsigned char is always ok due to promotion to int,
> and also if the signed type is strictly wider than the unsigned type).
I agree, it would be nice. However, I think it'd be better to continue
to depend on max_t() for these kinds of cases though. For example:
char foo[max_t(size_t, 6, sizeof(something))];
Works with the proposed patch.
Also, I think this mismatch would already be triggering warnings, so
we shouldn't have any currently.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
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.
