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;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:33:53 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: vtpm_proxy: Double-check to avoid buffer overflow
Message-ID: <20220118233353.GI8034@ziepe.ca>
References: <20220118183650.3386989-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <CAG48ez00FFW-n_Pi=+ya1xY5QuB3q2mPr8++scVe3h3ROeF_mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220118193931.GH8034@ziepe.ca>
 <202201181255.DB5D38F6AA@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202201181255.DB5D38F6AA@keescook>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 01:20:40PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:

> I haven't been able to reproduce the specific cause of why GCC decided to
> do the bounds checking, but it's not an unreasonable thing to check for,
> just for robustness.

Well, the commit message should explain this is to silence a compiler
bug and maybe put some colour on what version(s) are actually buggy..

Jason