On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> No luck! :( gcc 4.4 refuses to play along. And, hilariously, not only
>> does
ning: variable length array is used
./include/linux/mm.h:1567: error: first argument to
‘__builtin_choose_expr’ not a constant
6.8 is happy with it (of course).
I do think the earlier version (without the
sizeof-hiding-builting_constant_p) provides a template for a
const_max() that both you and R
this is the same problem of using __builtin_constant_p() in
4.4 that we hit earlier? :(
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
() instead.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
drivers/input/touchscreen/cyttsp4_core.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 3 ++-
lib/vsprintf.c | 5 +++--
net/ipv4/
Patch 1 adds const_max_t(), patch 2 uses it in all the places max()
was used for stack arrays. Commit log from patch 1:
---snip---
kernel.h: Introduce const_max_t() for VLA removal
In the effort to remove all VLAs from the kernel[1], it is desirable to
build with -Wvla. However, this warning is
argument. Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> So, AIUI, I can either get strict type checking, in which case, this
>> is rejected (which
__error_not_positive_arg(); \
>> if ((y) < 0) \
>> __error_not_positive_arg(); \
>> __builtin_choose_expr((x) > (y), (x), (y)); \
>> })
>>
>
> Nevermind.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with non-c
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> To gain the ability to compare differing types, the arguments are
>> explicitly cast
() instead.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
drivers/input/touchscreen/cyttsp4_core.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/tree-checker.c | 3 ++-
lib/vsprintf.c | 4 ++--
net/ipv4/
I'm calling this "v4" since the last effort at this was v3, even
if it's a different approach. Patch 1 adds const_max(), patch 2
uses it in all the places max() was used for stack arrays. Commit
log from patch 1:
---snip---
kernel.h: Introduce const_max() for VLA removal
In the effort to remove
))];
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/10/170
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
include/linux/kernel.h | 19 +++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index 3fd291
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Morton
<a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:28:57 -0700 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
KCFLAGS=-Wval and checking net/ipv6/proc.c:
net/ipv6/proc.c: In function ‘snmp6_seq_show_item’:
net/ipv6/proc.c:198:2: warning: ISO C90 forbids array ‘buff’ whose
size can’t be evaluated [-Wvla]
unsigned long buff[SNMP_MIB_MAX];
^~~~
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from th
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sando...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 04:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:05:36 -0800 Kees Cook
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel SecurityOn
> [...]
WTF, gmail just blasted HTML into my explicitly plain-text email?! Apologies...
--
Kees Cook
Pixel SecurityOn
Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Kees Cook mailto:kee
l "multi-eval max only for constants" macro (meh)
- add gcc version checks around this and similarly for -Wvla in the future (eww)
- raise gcc version (yikes)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel SecurityOn
Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Linus Torvalds mailto:torva...@linux-foundation.org;
targe
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
>> (e.g. "char foo[max
90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’
[-Wvla]
Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
v3:
- drop __builtin_types_compatible_p() (Rasmus, Linus)
v2:
- fix copy/paste-o max1_/max2_ (ijc)
- clarify "compile-time" constant in c
mm? The __builtin_types_compatible_p() just doesn't seem to matter
> for the only thing I thought it was there for.
Yup, agreed. I'll drop it.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> +#define __min(t1, t2, x, y)\
>> + __builtin_choose_
90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’
[-Wvla]
Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
v2:
- fix copy/paste-o max1_/max2_ (ijc)
- clarify "compile-time" constant in comment (Rasmus)
- clean up formatting on min_t()/max_t()
-
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:12 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
<li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> On 8 March 2018 at 21:39, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> However, this works for me:
>>
>> #define __new_max(t1, t2, max1, max2, x, y)
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:40:45 -0800 Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> When max() is used in stack array size calculations from literal values
>> (e.g. "char foo[
90 forbids variable length array ‘buff64’
[-Wvla]
Based on an earlier patch from Josh Poimboeuf.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
include/linux/kernel.h | 42 ++
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Rasmus Villemoes
<li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> On 2018-03-08 16:02, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:30:44PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> This series adds SIMPLE_MAX() to be used in places where a stack arr
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:30:44PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> This series adds SIMPLE_MAX() to be used in places where a stack array
>> is actually fixed, but the compiler still warns about VLA usag
In the quest to remove all stack VLAs from the kernel[1], this refactors
the stack array size calculation to avoid using max(), which makes the
compiler think the size isn't fixed.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
net/ipv4/proc.
In the quest to remove all stack VLAs from the kernel[1], this refactors
the stack array size calculation to avoid using max(), which makes the
compiler think the size isn't fixed.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
fs/btrf
like a variable size
to the compiler.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org>
---
include/linux/kernel.h | 11 +++
lib/vsprintf.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.
This series adds SIMPLE_MAX() to be used in places where a stack array
is actually fixed, but the compiler still warns about VLA usage due to
confusion caused by the safety checks in the max() macro.
I'm sending these via -mm since that's where I've introduced SIMPLE_MAX(),
and they should all
pulled those changes in? If the latter, please resend
> this when those changes are in, thanks.
It's in -next currently ("locking/refcount: Create unchecked atomic_t
implementation")
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 2:27 PM, James Bottomley
<james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 13:22 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Eric Biggers <ebigge...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > Of course,
venting
> the security improvement from being adopted, which is unfortunate.
We've been trying to handle the conflicting desires of those wanting
very precise refcounting implementation and gaining the security
protections. Ultimately, the best way forward seemed to be to first
land the precise refcounting implementation, and start conversion
until we ran into concerns over performance. Now, since we're here, we
can move forward with getting a fast implementation that provides the
desired security protections without too greatly messing with the
refcount API.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
h implementations and CONFIG_FAST_REFCOUNT_T that trades
coverage for speed, and checks only the overflow condition. This gets
us the critical coverage without the changes in performance. This is
basically what PaX/grsecurity already did: there is a tiny change to
the atomic inc functions to detect the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:56:35PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Hi!
Which tree is 'devel-snb'? I don't see that on the kernel.org trees.
It's my local merge branch, based on the latest upstream release.
Hm, which release
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeff Mahoney je...@suse.com wrote:
On 11/20/13, 12:30 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Fengguang Wu (2013-11-19 23:05:51)
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:56:35PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Hi!
Which tree is 'devel-snb'? I don't see that on the kernel.org trees.
It's
arguments [-Werror=format-security] get_raid_name(index));
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney je...@suse.com
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message
on how to accomplish this?
Thanks,
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
40 matches
Mail list logo
