Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210125124533.101339-1-arnd@kernel.org> <202101271213.4F331332E@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202101271213.4F331332E@keescook>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:29:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45+JqKDqewqz2oZtnphA-_0w62FdSTkRs43K_NJUgnLBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] kunit vs structleak
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Alan Maguire <alan.maguire@oracle.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:15 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:45:25PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >
> > I ran into a couple of problems with kunit tests taking too much stack
> > space, sometimes dangerously so. These the the three instances that
> > cause an increase over the warning limit of some architectures:
> >
> > lib/bitfield_kunit.c:93:1: error: the frame size of 7440 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
> > drivers/base/test/property-entry-test.c:481:1: error: the frame size of 2640 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
> > drivers/thunderbolt/test.c:1529:1: error: the frame size of 1176 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
> >
> > Ideally there should be a way to rewrite the kunit infrastructure
> > that avoids the explosion of stack data when the structleak plugin
> > is used.
> >
> > A rather drastic measure would be to use Kconfig logic to make
> > the two options mutually exclusive. This would clearly work, but
> > is probably not needed.
> >
> > As a simpler workaround, this disables the plugin for the three
> > files in which the excessive stack usage was observed.
> >
> >       Arnd
> >
> > Arnd Bergmann (3):
> >   bitfield: build kunit tests without structleak plugin
> >   drivers/base: build kunit tests without structleak plugin
> >   thunderbolt: build kunit tests without structleak plugin
> >
> >  drivers/base/test/Makefile   | 1 +
> >  drivers/thunderbolt/Makefile | 1 +
> >  lib/Makefile                 | 1 +
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> I think I'd prefer centralizing the disabling, as done with the other
> plugins, instead of sprinkling "open coded" command-line options around
> the kernel's Makefiles. :)
>
> For example:
>
>
> diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
> index 952e46876329..2d5009e3b593 100644
> --- a/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
> +++ b/scripts/Makefile.gcc-plugins
> @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK_BYREF_ALL)  \
>                 += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-byref-all
>  gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK)              \
>                 += -DSTRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN
> +ifdef CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_STRUCTLEAK
> +    DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN += -fplugin-arg-structleak_plugin-disable
> +endif
> +export DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN
>
>  gcc-plugin-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT)     += randomize_layout_plugin.so
>  gcc-plugin-cflags-$(CONFIG_GCC_PLUGIN_RANDSTRUCT)              \
>
>
> And then use DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN.

This looks fine to me. Does somebody want me to send this out as a
patch? Don't want to steal anyone's thunder :-)