Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Compile time fortify warning in Linux kernel after commit d77067d08a3f56d #77813

Open
nathanchance opened this issue Jan 11, 2024 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
invalid-code-generation Tool (e.g. clang-format) produced invalid code that no longer compiles llvm:optimizations

Comments

@nathanchance
Copy link
Member

After d77067d, there is a new warning in the Linux kernel from its compile time fortify protections (from include/linux/fortify-string.h) in fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c, which indicates that a condition that can be checked at compile time was triggered. However, it seems to be a false positive.

I've come up with a standalone reproducer from the kernel sources directly, which can be run in user space:

repro.c
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

typedef unsigned long	__kernel_ulong_t;
typedef __kernel_ulong_t __kernel_size_t;
typedef __kernel_size_t		size_t;

#define SIZE_MAX	(~(size_t)0)

#define __alloc_size(x, ...)			__attribute__((__alloc_size__(x, ## __VA_ARGS__))) __attribute__((__malloc__))
#define __cold					__attribute__((__cold__))
#define __compiletime_error(msg)		__attribute__((__error__(msg)))
#define __compiletime_warning(msg)		__attribute__((__warning__(msg)))
#define __diagnose_as(builtin...)		__attribute__((__diagnose_as_builtin__(builtin)))
#define __pass_dynamic_object_size(type)	__attribute__((__pass_dynamic_object_size__(type)))
#define __gnu_inline				__attribute__((__gnu_inline__))
#define __noreturn				__attribute__((__noreturn__))
#define __overloadable				__attribute__((__overloadable__))

#define __FORTIFY_INLINE extern __always_inline __gnu_inline __overloadable
#define __RENAME(x) __asm__(#x)

#define __struct_size(p)	__builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 0)
#define __member_size(p)	__builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1)
#define POS			__pass_dynamic_object_size(1)
#define POS0			__pass_dynamic_object_size(0)

void fortify_panic(const char *name) __noreturn __cold;
void __write_overflow(void) __compiletime_error("detected write beyond size of object (1st parameter)");
void __write_overflow_field(size_t avail, size_t wanted) __compiletime_warning("detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()?");

#define __compiletime_lessthan(bounds, length)	(	\
	__builtin_constant_p((bounds) < (length)) &&	\
	(bounds) < (length)				\
)

#define __compiletime_strlen(p)					\
({								\
	char *__p = (char *)(p);				\
	size_t __ret = SIZE_MAX;				\
	const size_t __p_size = __member_size(p);		\
	if (__p_size != SIZE_MAX &&				\
	    __builtin_constant_p(*__p)) {			\
		size_t __p_len = __p_size - 1;			\
		if (__builtin_constant_p(__p[__p_len]) &&	\
		    __p[__p_len] == '\0')			\
			__ret = __builtin_strlen(__p);		\
	}							\
	__ret;							\
})

#define __is_constexpr(x) \
	(sizeof(int) == sizeof(*(8 ? ((void *)((long)(x) * 0l)) : (int *)8)))

#define strlen(p)							\
	__builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(p)),	\
		__builtin_strlen(p), __fortify_strlen(p))

#define __underlying_memset	__builtin_memset
#define __underlying_strlen	__builtin_strlen

extern __kernel_size_t __real_strnlen(const char *, __kernel_size_t) __RENAME(strnlen);
/**
 * strnlen - Return bounded count of characters in a NUL-terminated string
 *
 * @p: pointer to NUL-terminated string to count.
 * @maxlen: maximum number of characters to count.
 *
 * Returns number of characters in @p (NOT including the final NUL), or
 * @maxlen, if no NUL has been found up to there.
 *
 */
__FORTIFY_INLINE __kernel_size_t strnlen(const char * const POS p, __kernel_size_t maxlen)
{
	const size_t p_size = __member_size(p);
	const size_t p_len = __compiletime_strlen(p);
	size_t ret;

	/* We can take compile-time actions when maxlen is const. */
	if (__builtin_constant_p(maxlen) && p_len != SIZE_MAX) {
		/* If p is const, we can use its compile-time-known len. */
		if (maxlen >= p_size)
			return p_len;
	}

	/* Do not check characters beyond the end of p. */
	ret = __real_strnlen(p, maxlen < p_size ? maxlen : p_size);
	if (p_size <= ret && maxlen != ret)
		fortify_panic(__func__);
	return ret;
}

__FORTIFY_INLINE __diagnose_as(__builtin_strlen, 1)
__kernel_size_t __fortify_strlen(const char * const POS p)
{
	const size_t p_size = __member_size(p);
	__kernel_size_t ret;

	/* Give up if we don't know how large p is. */
	if (p_size == SIZE_MAX)
		return __underlying_strlen(p);
	ret = strnlen(p, p_size);
	if (p_size <= ret)
		fortify_panic(__func__);
	return ret;
}

__FORTIFY_INLINE void fortify_memset_chk(__kernel_size_t size,
					 const size_t p_size,
					 const size_t p_size_field)
{
	if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) {
		/*
		 * Length argument is a constant expression, so we
		 * can perform compile-time bounds checking where
		 * buffer sizes are also known at compile time.
		 */

		/* Error when size is larger than enclosing struct. */
		if (__compiletime_lessthan(p_size_field, p_size) &&
		    __compiletime_lessthan(p_size, size))
			__write_overflow();

		/* Warn when write size is larger than dest field. */
		if (__compiletime_lessthan(p_size_field, size))
			__write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
	}
	/*
	 * At this point, length argument may not be a constant expression,
	 * so run-time bounds checking can be done where buffer sizes are
	 * known. (This is not an "else" because the above checks may only
	 * be compile-time warnings, and we want to still warn for run-time
	 * overflows.)
	 */

	/*
	 * Always stop accesses beyond the struct that contains the
	 * field, when the buffer's remaining size is known.
	 * (The SIZE_MAX test is to optimize away checks where the buffer
	 * lengths are unknown.)
	 */
	if (p_size != SIZE_MAX && p_size < size)
		fortify_panic("memset");
}

#define __fortify_memset_chk(p, c, size, p_size, p_size_field) ({	\
	size_t __fortify_size = (size_t)(size);				\
	fortify_memset_chk(__fortify_size, p_size, p_size_field),	\
	__underlying_memset(p, c, __fortify_size);			\
})

#define memset(p, c, s) __fortify_memset_chk(p, c, s,			\
		__struct_size(p), __member_size(p))

#define show(exp) printf(#exp ": %zu\n", exp)

extern int crypto_shash_update(const unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int len);

static __always_inline __alloc_size(1) void *kmalloc(size_t size)
{
	return malloc(size);
}

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
	unsigned short *user;
	char *user_name = NULL;
	int len;

	if (argc > 1)
		user_name = argv[1];

	len = user_name ? strlen(user_name) : 0;
	user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2));
	if (!user)
		return -1;

	show(__struct_size(user));
	show(__member_size(user));

	if (len)
		printf("Length of user_name is not zero\n");
	else
		memset(user, '\0', 2);

	return crypto_shash_update((unsigned char *)user, len * 2);
}
lib.c
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void fortify_panic(const char *name)
{
	fprintf(stderr, "detected buffer overflow in %s\n", name);
	exit(1);
}

size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t count)
{
	const char *sc;

	for (sc = s; count-- && *sc != '\0'; ++sc)
		/* nothing */;
	return sc - s;
}

int crypto_shash_update(const unsigned char *buffer, unsigned int len)
{
	return len % 2;
}

void __write_overflow_field(size_t avail, size_t wanted)
{
}
$ clang -O2 repro.c lib.c
repro.c:127:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  127 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^
1 warning generated.

$ ./a.out test
__struct_size(user): 10
__member_size(user): 10
Length of user_name is not zero

$ ./a.out
__struct_size(user): 2
__member_size(user): 2

In the else block, __builtin_dynamic_object_size() can only ever return 2 because we know len is zero (i.e., p_size_field == 2 due to __alloc_size(1) on kmalloc()) and the size to memset() is 2 (i.e., size == 2), so the condition p_size_field < size is always false, but it appears that after that change it is no longer eliminated (or sunk in some other manner?).

Some other potentially relevant information is in the downstream issue.

cc @nikic @nickdesaulniers @kees

@dtcxzyw
Copy link
Member

dtcxzyw commented Jan 11, 2024

Alive2: https://alive2.llvm.org/ce/z/GUuN4i

@dtcxzyw dtcxzyw added llvm:optimizations missed-optimization and removed clang:diagnostics New/improved warning or error message in Clang, but not in clang-tidy or static analyzer labels Jan 11, 2024
@nickdesaulniers nickdesaulniers added invalid-code-generation Tool (e.g. clang-format) produced invalid code that no longer compiles and removed missed-optimization labels Jan 11, 2024
@nickdesaulniers
Copy link
Member

cc @regehr

1054009064 pushed a commit to 1054009064/linux that referenced this issue Jan 25, 2024
Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 24, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 25, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 26, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
mj22226 pushed a commit to mj22226/linux that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
1054009064 pushed a commit to 1054009064/linux that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Whissi pushed a commit to Whissi/linux-stable that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
gregkh pushed a commit to gregkh/linux that referenced this issue Mar 1, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Mar 2, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Mar 2, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
johnny-mnemonic pushed a commit to linux-ia64/linux-stable-rc that referenced this issue Mar 2, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
NeroReflex pushed a commit to NeroReflex/linux that referenced this issue Mar 3, 2024
[ Upstream commit 8deb05c ]

Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
smfrench pushed a commit to smfrench/smb3-kernel that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2024
Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
smfrench pushed a commit to smfrench/smb3-kernel that referenced this issue Mar 20, 2024
Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
	...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
	...
	if (len) {
		...
	} else {
		memset(user, '\0', 2);
	}

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
smfrench pushed a commit to smfrench/smb3-kernel that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2024
Recent versions of Clang gets confused about the possible size of the
"user" allocation, and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE ends up emitting a
warning[1]:

repro.c:126:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with 'warning' attribute: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning]
  126 |                         __write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
      |                         ^

for this memset():

        int len;
        __le16 *user;
        ...
        len = ses->user_name ? strlen(ses->user_name) : 0;
        user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2), GFP_KERNEL);
        ...
        if (len) {
                ...
        } else {
                memset(user, '\0', 2);
        }

While Clang works on this bug[2], switch to using a direct assignment,
which avoids memset() entirely which both simplifies the code and silences
the false positive warning. (Making "len" size_t also silences the
warning, but the direct assignment seems better.)

Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Closes: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 [1]
Link: llvm/llvm-project#77813 [2]
Cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
Cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
Cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
invalid-code-generation Tool (e.g. clang-format) produced invalid code that no longer compiles llvm:optimizations
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants