Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751758AbdGZRR2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:17:28 -0400
Received: from mail-io0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:36374 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751529AbdGZRRZ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:17:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwrd2qgnU7evM8ssZ5qsygLMG_47jHx9cvHGPagRAdwuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170726035036.GA76341@beast> <CA+55aFwrd2qgnU7evM8ssZ5qsygLMG_47jHx9cvHGPagRAdwuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:17:23 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: WGRQssQBvIQ7LHmppeuLXSDQzFc
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJrAWKAsDEchyV+wFX_530YpbeBtnrV-kdKO6OP3S=_Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fortify: Use WARN instead of BUG for now
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1527
Lines: 48

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> +
>> +void fortify_read_overflow(const char *func)
>>  {
>> -       pr_emerg("detected buffer overflow in %s\n", name);
>> -       BUG();
>> +       WARN(1, "detected read beyond size of object passed as 1st parameter in %s\n", func);
>>  }
>
> Side note: have you actually checked the code generation of this all?
>
> In particular, do you have any reason to use the out-of-line
> functions? Our WARN() code isn't horrible, and isn't likely to be
> noticeably worse than your own explicit out-of-lining. And you'd get
> the "unlikely()" for free, so you'll possibly get smaller code that
> runs better too.
>
> And it would even *look* better. This:
>
>         if (p_size < size)
>                fortify_read_overflow(__func__);
>
> would become
>
>        WARN(p_size < size, "kmemdup size overflow");
>
> or something.

I did, yeah. It's actually slightly smaller code size to out-of-line these:

$ size vmlinux.fortify*
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
10903767        5605009 13930496        30439272        1d07768
vmlinux.fortify-off
10944795        5617801 13930496        30493092        1d149a4 vmlinux.fortify
10950117        5626725 13930496        30507338        1d1814a
vmlinux.fortify-inline

If the readability improvement is preferred over the growth in size, I
can certainly respin it.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security