lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] kasan: use fortified strings for hwaddress sanitizer
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 05:00:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>
> GCC has separate macros for -fsanitize=kernel-address and
> -fsanitize=kernel-hwaddress, and the check in the arm64 string.h
> gets this wrong, which leads to string functions not getting
> fortified with gcc. The newly added tests find this:
>
> warning: unsafe memchr() usage lacked '__read_overflow' warning in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow-memchr.c
> warning: unsafe memchr_inv() usage lacked '__read_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow-memchr_inv.c
> warning: unsafe memcmp() usage lacked '__read_overflow' warning in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow-memcmp.c
> warning: unsafe memscan() usage lacked '__read_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow-memscan.c
> warning: unsafe memcmp() usage lacked '__read_overflow2' warning in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow2-memcmp.c
> warning: unsafe memcpy() usage lacked '__read_overflow2' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow2-memcpy.c
> warning: unsafe memmove() usage lacked '__read_overflow2' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/read_overflow2-memmove.c
> warning: unsafe memcpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-memcpy.c
> warning: unsafe memmove() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-memmove.c
> warning: unsafe memset() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-memset.c
> warning: unsafe strcpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strcpy-lit.c
> warning: unsafe strcpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strcpy.c
> warning: unsafe strlcpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strlcpy-src.c
> warning: unsafe strlcpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strlcpy.c
> warning: unsafe strncpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strncpy-src.c
> warning: unsafe strncpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strncpy.c
> warning: unsafe strscpy() usage lacked '__write_overflow' symbol in /git/arm-soc/lib/test_fortify/write_overflow-strscpy.c
>

What is the build config that trips these warnings?

In trying to understand this, I see in arch/arm64/include/asm/string.h:

#if (defined(CONFIG_KASAN_GENERIC) || defined(CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS)) && \
!defined(__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__)

other architectures (like arm32) do:

#if defined(CONFIG_KASAN) && !defined(__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__)

so it's okay because it's not getting touched by the hwaddress sanitizer?
e.g. I see:

config CC_HAS_KASAN_GENERIC
def_bool $(cc-option, -fsanitize=kernel-address)

config CC_HAS_KASAN_SW_TAGS
def_bool $(cc-option, -fsanitize=kernel-hwaddress)

> Add a workaround to include/linux/compiler_types.h so we always
> define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ for either mode, as we already do
> for clang.

Where is the clang work-around? (Or is this a statement that clang,
under -fsanitize=kernel-hwaddress, already sets __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ by
default?

>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> ---
> include/linux/compiler_types.h | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_types.h b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> index aad6f6408bfa..2f2776fffefe 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> @@ -178,6 +178,13 @@ struct ftrace_likely_data {
> */
> #define noinline_for_stack noinline
>
> +/*
> + * Treat __SANITIZE_HWADDRESS__ the same as __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ in the kernel
> + */
> +#ifdef __SANITIZE_HWADDRESS__
> +#define __SANITIZE_ADDRESS__
> +#endif

Should this go into compiler-gcc.h instead?

> +
> /*
> * Sanitizer helper attributes: Because using __always_inline and
> * __no_sanitize_* conflict, provide helper attributes that will either expand
> --
> 2.29.2
>

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-10-18 21:58    [W:0.098 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site