|
Message-ID: <202009031446.3865FE82B@keescook> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:47:24 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/28] lib/string.c: implement stpcpy On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 01:30:28PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> > > LLVM implemented a recent "libcall optimization" that lowers calls to > `sprintf(dest, "%s", str)` where the return value is used to > `stpcpy(dest, str) - dest`. This generally avoids the machinery involved > in parsing format strings. `stpcpy` is just like `strcpy` except it > returns the pointer to the new tail of `dest`. This optimization was > introduced into clang-12. > > Implement this so that we don't observe linkage failures due to missing > symbol definitions for `stpcpy`. > > Similar to last year's fire drill with: > commit 5f074f3e192f ("lib/string.c: implement a basic bcmp") > > The kernel is somewhere between a "freestanding" environment (no full libc) > and "hosted" environment (many symbols from libc exist with the same > type, function signature, and semantics). > > As H. Peter Anvin notes, there's not really a great way to inform the > compiler that you're targeting a freestanding environment but would like > to opt-in to some libcall optimizations (see pr/47280 below), rather than > opt-out. > > Arvind notes, -fno-builtin-* behaves slightly differently between GCC > and Clang, and Clang is missing many __builtin_* definitions, which I > consider a bug in Clang and am working on fixing. > > Masahiro summarizes the subtle distinction between compilers justly: > To prevent transformation from foo() into bar(), there are two ways in > Clang to do that; -fno-builtin-foo, and -fno-builtin-bar. There is > only one in GCC; -fno-buitin-foo. > > (Any difference in that behavior in Clang is likely a bug from a missing > __builtin_* definition.) > > Masahiro also notes: > We want to disable optimization from foo() to bar(), > but we may still benefit from the optimization from > foo() into something else. If GCC implements the same transform, we > would run into a problem because it is not -fno-builtin-bar, but > -fno-builtin-foo that disables that optimization. > > In this regard, -fno-builtin-foo would be more future-proof than > -fno-built-bar, but -fno-builtin-foo is still potentially overkill. We > may want to prevent calls from foo() being optimized into calls to > bar(), but we still may want other optimization on calls to foo(). > > It seems that compilers today don't quite provide the fine grain control > over which libcall optimizations pseudo-freestanding environments would > prefer. > > Finally, Kees notes that this interface is unsafe, so we should not > encourage its use. As such, I've removed the declaration from any > header, but it still needs to be exported to avoid linkage errors in > modules. > > Reported-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> > Suggested-by: Andy Lavr <andy.lavr@...il.com> > Suggested-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> > Suggested-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> > Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> > Suggested-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> > Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> As you mentioned, this is in -next already (via -mm). I think I sent a tag for this before, but maybe akpm missed it, so for good measure: Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> -- Kees Cook
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.