Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:55:14 -0700 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] jfs: Use unsigned variable for length calculations |
| |
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:50:42PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org) wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 08:25:45PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Kees Cook (keescook@chromium.org) wrote: > > > > To avoid confusing the compiler about possible negative sizes, switch > > > > "ssize" which can never be negative from int to u32. Seen with GCC 13: > > > > > > > > ../fs/jfs/namei.c: In function 'jfs_symlink': ../include/linux/fortify-string.h:57:33: warning: '__builtin_memcpy' pointer overflow between offset 0 and size [-2147483648, -1] > > > > [-Warray-bounds=] > > > > 57 | #define __underlying_memcpy __builtin_memcpy > > > > | ^ > > > > ... > > > > ../fs/jfs/namei.c:950:17: note: in expansion of macro 'memcpy' > > > > 950 | memcpy(ip->i_link, name, ssize); > > > > | ^~~~~~ > > > > > > > > Cc: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> > > > > Cc: jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > fs/jfs/namei.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jfs/namei.c b/fs/jfs/namei.c > > > > index b29d68b5eec5..494b9f4043cf 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/jfs/namei.c > > > > +++ b/fs/jfs/namei.c > > > > @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@ static int jfs_symlink(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dip, > > > > tid_t tid; > > > > ino_t ino = 0; > > > > struct component_name dname; > > > > - int ssize; /* source pathname size */ > > > > + u32 ssize; /* source pathname size */ > > > > > > Had you considered using size_t - this is set from a strlen and used by a memcpy > > > that both talk size_t. > > > > I considered that, but I've had other maintainers upset about doubling > > the variable size. > > I bet at least on some platforms it's cheaper as the 64 bit. > > > I opted to keep the variable 32-bit here, so the > > machine code would only change to lose signed-ness. > > Fair enough.
Thread ping. Can someone pick this up (or Ack it for my tree), please?
Thanks!
-Kees
-- Kees Cook
| |