From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/9] crypto: qat: Remove VLA usage Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:12:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180807211843.47586-1-keescook@chromium.org> <20180807211843.47586-8-keescook@chromium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Herbert Xu , Eric Biggers , Ard Biesheuvel , Giovanni Cabiddu , Alasdair Kergon , Mike Snitzer , Tudor Ambarus , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Geert Uytterhoeven , Will Deacon , Rasmus Villemoes , David Woodhouse , Matthew Wilcox , David Miller , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" , dm-devel@redhat.com, qa To: Kees Cook Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180807211843.47586-8-keescook@chromium.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:18 PM Kees Cook wrote: > > In the quest to remove all stack VLA usage from the kernel[1], this uses > the new upper bound for the stack buffer. Also adds a sanity check. > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFzCG-zNmZwX4A2FQpadafLfEzK6CC=qPXydAacU1RqZWA@mail.gmail.com > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook After rebasing to linux-next, I now get a warning about this file: drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/qat_algs.c: In function 'qat_alg_do_precomputes': drivers/crypto/qat/qat_common/qat_algs.c:257:1: error: the frame size of 1112 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] I assume it was already possible to get into that state with the VLA, but it seems bad enough that I think we need to do something about it. The large stack variables add up to 1084 bytes, which fully explains how we got here: SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, ctx->hash_tfm); /* 360 */ struct sha1_state sha1; /* 92 */ struct sha256_state sha256; /* 104 */ struct sha512_state sha512; /* 208 */ char ipad[MAX_ALGAPI_BLOCKSIZE]; /* 160 */ char opad[MAX_ALGAPI_BLOCKSIZE]; /* 160 */ The question is what we can do about it. One simple step I've tried is to move the sha1/sha256/sha512 into a union, which saves around 200 bytes and should bring us (slightly) below the warning limit, but I suspect we can do better than that. Any ideas? Arnd