Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20630-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 12:07:58 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, error27@gmail.com,
	gustavoars@kernel.org, Bryan Tan <bryantan@vmware.com>,
	Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@vmware.com>,
	VMware PV-Drivers Reviewers <pv-drivers@vmware.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@oracle.com,
	darren.kenny@oracle.com, syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] VMCI: Fix memcpy() run-time warning in
 dg_dispatch_as_host()
Message-ID: <79ca2f85-1f8d-4a12-aa5a-09137033605f@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240105164001.2129796-1-harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
 <20240105164001.2129796-2-harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
 <202401081430.9DAB37B46@keescook>
 <9c742547-0021-464b-b7a8-7af46b0a4afa@embeddedor.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9c742547-0021-464b-b7a8-7af46b0a4afa@embeddedor.com>

On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 08:05:38PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > Gustavo quoted:
> > > "Under FORTIFY_SOURCE we should not copy data across multiple members
> > > in a structure."
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Harshit Mogalapalli <harshit.m.mogalapalli@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Thanks for getting this fixed!
> > 
> > Yeah, it's a "false positive" in the sense that the code was expecting
> 
> It's a false positive _bug_, and a legitimate _warning_ coming from fortified
> memcpy().

It really feels like you're trying to sell the cost of this as a good
thing...  We've already merged fortify so why are you still fighting
about this?  Now that it's merged, let's just all admit that false
positives are bad.

I feel like once we recognize that actually false positives are bad as
opposed to good then that's when we start looking for solutions.  In
Smatch, I have code that silences warnings about cross member writes
because it was a common source of false positives...

The Kconfig entry does not mention the risk of false positives at all
and it doesn't say anything about turning on fortify along with
CONFIG_PANIC_ON_OOPS is probably bad.  There are simple things we could
do to make this less risky.

regards,
dan carpenter