Le 19/11/2021 à 17:28, Kees Cook a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 08:46:27AM +0000, LEROY Christophe wrote:
Le 18/11/2021 à 21:36, Kees Cook a écrit :
In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
neighboring fields.
Add a struct_group() for the spe registers so that memset() can correctly reason
about the size:
In function 'fortify_memset_chk',
inlined from 'restore_user_regs.part.0' at
arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:539:3:
>> include/linux/fortify-string.h:195:4: error: call to
'__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size
of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror=attribute-warning]
195 | __write_overflow_field();
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
However, is it really worth adding that grouping ? Wouldn't it be
cleaner to handle evr[] and acc separately ? Now that we are using
unsafe variants of get/put user performance wouldn't be impacted.
I'm fine with whatever is desired here. I reworked an earlier version of
this patch based on mpe's feedback, so I can certain rework it again. :)
Well, with oddities like the below, it may not be straight forward. If
the objective is to enable FORTIFY_SOURCE, maybe that's good enough.
Let see if Michael has any opinion.
I have some doubts about things like:
unsafe_copy_to_user(&frame->mc_vregs, current->thread.evr,
ELF_NEVRREG * sizeof(u32), failed);
Because as far as I can see, ELF_NEVRREG is 34 but mc_vregs is a table
of 33 u32 and is at the end of the structure:
struct mcontext {
elf_gregset_t mc_gregs;
elf_fpregset_t mc_fregs;
unsigned long mc_pad[2];
elf_vrregset_t mc_vregs __attribute__((__aligned__(16)));
};
typedef elf_vrreg_t elf_vrregset_t[ELF_NVRREG];
# define ELF_NEVRREG 34 /* includes acc (as 2) */
# define ELF_NVRREG 33 /* includes vscr */
I don't know these internals very well -- do you want me to change this
specifically somehow? With the BUILD_BUG_ON()s added, there's no binary
change here -- I wanted to make sure nothing was different in the
output.
Neither do I. I was just scared by what I saw while reviewing your
patch. A cleanup is probably required but it can be another patch.
Christophe
