Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:35:00 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] powerpc/signal32: Use struct_group() to zero spe regs | From | Christophe Leroy <> |
| |
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 <lkp@intel.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >> >> Reviewed-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@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
| |