Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-137554-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-379-gabd37849b7-fm-20240408.001-gabd37849
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <f94c6943-eb93-4533-8e4d-3645ef38b990@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240409161517.GA3219862@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
References: <20240216202657.2493685-1-arnd@kernel.org>
 <202402161301.BBFA14EE@keescook>
 <763214eb-20eb-4627-8d4b-2e7f29db829a@app.fastmail.com>
 <20240409161517.GA3219862@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:41:09 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@kernel.org>,
 "Steffen Klassert" <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
 "Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
 "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
 "Nick Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
 "Bill Wendling" <morbo@google.com>, "Justin Stitt" <justinstitt@google.com>,
 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
 "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@kernel.org>, "Lin Ma" <linma@zju.edu.cn>,
 "Simon Horman" <horms@kernel.org>, "Breno Leitao" <leitao@debian.org>,
 "Tobias Brunner" <tobias@strongswan.org>, "Raed Salem" <raeds@nvidia.com>,
 Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] xfrm: work around a clang-19 fortifiy-string false-positive
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, at 18:15, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:06:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >
>> > The shorter fix (in the issue) is to explicitly range-check before
>> > the loop:
>> >
>> >        if (xp->xfrm_nr > XFRM_MAX_DEPTH)
>> >                return -ENOBUFS;
>> 
>> I ran into this issue again and I see that Nathan's fix has
>> made it into mainline and backports, but it's apparently
>> not sufficient.
>> 
>> I don't see the warning with my patch from this thread, but
>> there may still be a better fix.
>
> Is it the exact same warning? clang-19 or older?
> What > architecture/configuration? If my change is not sufficient then maybe
> there are two separate issues here? I have not seen this warning appear
> in our CI since my change was applied.

I only see it with clang-19. I've never seen it with arm32 and
currently only see it with arm64, though I had seen it with x86-64
as well in February before your patch.

The warning is the same as before aside from the line number,
which which is now include/linux/fortify-string.h:462:4
where it was line 420, but I think that is just a context
change.

I have a number of configs that reproduce this bug, see
https://pastebin.com/tMgfD7cu for an example with current
linux-next.

     Arnd