[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181209210220.GB2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 21:02:21 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] copy_{to,from}_user(): only inline when !__CHECKER__
On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 01:44:49PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> While working on some additional copy_to_user() checks for sparse, I
> noticed that sparse's current copy_to_user() checks are not triggered. This
> is because copy_to_user() is declared as __always_inline, and sparse
> specifically looks for a call instruction to copy_to_user() when it tries
> to apply the checks.
>
> A quick fix is to explicitly not inline when __CHECKER__ is defined, so
> that sparse will be able to analyze all the copy_{to,from}_user calls.
> There may be some refactoring in sparse that we can do to fix this,
> although it's not immediately obvious to me how, hence the RFC-ness of this
> patch.
Which sparse checks do not trigger? Explain, please - as it is, I had been
unable to guess what could "specifically looks for a call instruction" refer
to.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
