-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
New fortify warning in fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c after LLVM commit d77067d08a3f56dc2d0e6c95bd2852c943df743a #1966
Comments
Whoops, I forgot to mention this is originally from the diff --git a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
index ef4c2e3c9fa6..9c4c532e49a7 100644
--- a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
+++ b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
@@ -571,8 +571,10 @@ static int calc_ntlmv2_hash(struct cifs_ses *ses, char *ntlmv2_hash,
if (len) {
len = cifs_strtoUTF16(user, ses->user_name, len, nls_cp);
UniStrupr(user);
+#if 0
} else {
memset(user, '\0', 2);
+#endif
}
rc = crypto_shash_update(ses->server->secmech.hmacmd5, |
I spent some more time looking into this today. A semi-coherent brain dump follows :P That example may have been overreduced, this one was done more manually but I can verify that GCC and Clang 17.0.1 do not warn whereas current trunk does. typedef unsigned short __u16;
typedef __u16 __le16;
typedef unsigned long size_t;
struct cifs_ses {
char *user_name;
};
struct shash_desc;
__attribute__((__alloc_size__(1))) __attribute__((__malloc__)) void *kmalloc(size_t size);
int crypto_shash_update(const unsigned char *data, unsigned int len);
void fortify_panic(const char *name) __attribute__((__noreturn__)) __attribute__((__cold__));
void __write_overflow(void) __attribute__((__error__("detected write beyond size of object (1st parameter)")));
void __write_overflow_field(size_t avail, size_t wanted) __attribute__((__warning__("detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()?")));
extern inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__unused__)) __attribute__((no_instrument_function)) __attribute__((__always_inline__)) __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__overloadable__)) void fortify_memset_chk(size_t size,
const size_t p_size,
const size_t p_size_field)
{
if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) {
if (( __builtin_constant_p((p_size_field) < (p_size)) && (p_size_field) < (p_size) ) &&
( __builtin_constant_p((p_size) < (size)) && (p_size) < (size) ))
__write_overflow();
if (( __builtin_constant_p((p_size_field) < (size)) && (p_size_field) < (size) ))
__write_overflow_field(p_size_field, size);
}
if (p_size != (~(size_t)0) && p_size < size)
fortify_panic("memset");
}
extern size_t __real_strnlen(const char *, size_t) __asm__("strnlen");
extern inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__unused__)) __attribute__((no_instrument_function)) __attribute__((__always_inline__)) __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__overloadable__)) size_t strnlen(const char * const __attribute__
((__pass_dynamic_object_size__(1))) p, size_t maxlen)
{
const size_t p_size = __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1);
const size_t p_len = ({ char *__p = (char *)(p); size_t __ret = (~(size_t)0); const size_t __p_size = __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1); if (__p_size != (~(size_t)0) && __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; });
size_t ret;
if (__builtin_constant_p(maxlen) && p_len != (~(size_t)0)) {
if (maxlen >= p_size)
return p_len;
}
ret = __real_strnlen(p, maxlen < p_size ? maxlen : p_size);
if (p_size <= ret && maxlen != ret)
fortify_panic(__func__);
return ret;
}
extern inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__unused__)) __attribute__((no_instrument_function)) __attribute__((__always_inline__)) __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)) __attribute__((__overloadable__)) __attribute__((__diagnose_as_builtin__(__builtin_strlen,
1)))
size_t __fortify_strlen(const char * const __attribute__((__pass_dynamic_object_size__(1))) p)
{
const size_t p_size = __builtin_dynamic_object_size(p, 1);
size_t ret;
if (p_size == (~(size_t)0))
return __builtin_strlen(p);
ret = strnlen(p, p_size);
if (p_size <= ret)
fortify_panic(__func__);
return ret;
}
int calc_ntlmv2_hash(struct cifs_ses *ses, char *ntlmv2_hash)
{
__le16 *user;
int len;
len = ses->user_name ? __builtin_choose_expr((sizeof(int) == sizeof(*(8 ? ((void *)((long)(__builtin_strlen(ses->user_name)) * 0l)) : (int *)8))), __builtin_strlen(ses->user_name), __fortify_strlen(ses->user_name)) : 0;
user = kmalloc(2 + (len * 2));
if (!user)
return -1;
if (len)
;
else {
({ size_t __fortify_size = (size_t)(2); fortify_memset_chk(__fortify_size, __builtin_dynamic_object_size(user, 0), __builtin_dynamic_object_size(user, 1)), __builtin_memset(user, '\0', __fortify_size); });
}
return crypto_shash_update((unsigned char *)user, len * 2);
} https://godbolt.org/z/bMe9b1cer The diff of the IR is somewhat interesting (you can see it on Godbolt by adding Diff of LLVM IRdiff --git a/tmp/17.0.1 b/tmp/trunk
index f69abc0..1668835 100644
--- a/tmp/17.0.1
+++ b/tmp/trunk
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ define dso_local i32 @calc_ntlmv2_hash(ptr nocapture noundef readonly %0, ptr no
br i1 %4, label %8, label %5
5:
- %6 = tail call i64 @strlen(ptr noundef nonnull dereferenceable(1) %3) #5
+ %6 = tail call i64 @strlen(ptr noundef nonnull dereferenceable(1) %3) #6
%7 = trunc i64 %6 to i32
br label %8
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ define dso_local i32 @calc_ntlmv2_hash(ptr nocapture noundef readonly %0, ptr no
%10 = shl nsw i32 %9, 1
%11 = add nsw i32 %10, 2
%12 = sext i32 %11 to i64
- %13 = tail call noalias ptr @kmalloc(i64 noundef %12) #6
+ %13 = tail call noalias ptr @kmalloc(i64 noundef %12) #7
%14 = icmp eq ptr %13, null
br i1 %14, label %23, label %15
@@ -28,7 +28,8 @@ define dso_local i32 @calc_ntlmv2_hash(ptr nocapture noundef readonly %0, ptr no
br i1 %18, label %19, label %20
19:
- tail call void @fortify_panic(ptr noundef nonnull @.str) #7
+ tail call void @__write_overflow_field(i64 noundef %12, i64 noundef 2) #6
+ tail call void @fortify_panic(ptr noundef nonnull @.str) #8
unreachable
20:
@@ -36,7 +37,7 @@ define dso_local i32 @calc_ntlmv2_hash(ptr nocapture noundef readonly %0, ptr no
br label %21
21:
- %22 = tail call i32 @crypto_shash_update(ptr noundef nonnull %13, i32 noundef %10) #5
+ %22 = tail call i32 @crypto_shash_update(ptr noundef nonnull %13, i32 noundef %10) #6
br label %23
23:
@@ -52,11 +53,14 @@ declare i64 @strlen(ptr nocapture noundef) local_unnamed_addr #3
declare void @fortify_panic(ptr noundef) local_unnamed_addr #4
+declare void @__write_overflow_field(i64 noundef, i64 noundef) local_unnamed_addr #5
+
attributes #0 = { nounwind uwtable "min-legal-vector-width"="0" "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
attributes #1 = { allocsize(0) "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
attributes #2 = { "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
attributes #3 = { mustprogress nofree nounwind willreturn memory(argmem: read) "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
attributes #4 = { cold noreturn "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
-attributes #5 = { nounwind }
-attributes #6 = { nounwind allocsize(0) }
-attributes #7 = { cold noreturn nounwind }
+attributes #5 = { "dontcall-warn"="detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()?" "no-trapping-math"="true" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-cpu"="x86-64" "target-features"="+cmov,+cx8,+fxsr,+mmx,+sse,+sse2,+x87" "tune-cpu"="generic" }
+attributes #6 = { nounwind }
+attributes #7 = { nounwind allocsize(0) }
+attributes #8 = { cold noreturn nounwind } This ultimately seems related to the fact that diff --git a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
index ef4c2e3c9fa6..fff88b1fa5aa 100644
--- a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
+++ b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
@@ -533,7 +533,7 @@ static int calc_ntlmv2_hash(struct cifs_ses *ses, char *ntlmv2_hash,
const struct nls_table *nls_cp)
{
int rc = 0;
- int len;
+ size_t len;
char nt_hash[CIFS_NTHASH_SIZE];
__le16 *user;
wchar_t *domain; I am not sure what llvm/llvm-project@d77067d has to do with that. I suspect it has something to do with the That diff is probably the right solution for this because of the type mismatch as it is but many of the functions that use I may be missing something else obvious here too. cc @kees, I had pinged about this on IRC but I am not sure how active you have been on there especially with the holidays. |
Hmm. I haven't dug into the IR or anything, but I'm always suspicious of these kinds of tiny diff --git a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
index ef4c2e3c9fa6..0a0f0e1d43be 100644
--- a/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
+++ b/fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
@@ -572,7 +572,7 @@ static int calc_ntlmv2_hash(struct cifs_ses *ses, char *ntlmv2_hash,
len = cifs_strtoUTF16(user, ses->user_name, len, nls_cp);
UniStrupr(user);
} else {
- memset(user, '\0', 2);
+ *user = 0;
}
rc = crypto_shash_update(ses->server->secmech.hmacmd5, |
It does seem like a Clang bug, though, since |
Is this true though? The size of I have a standalone reproducer that can be run in user space, which never triggers
|
Oh I see what you mean -- |
Upstream issue filed: llvm/llvm-project#77813
I think we can wait to see what upstream says/recommends. This is only visible with tip of tree LLVM at the moment, so I don't necessarily think we need to rush a fix. |
I have not seen any movement on the upstream report and this is starting to get annoying in CI due to |
…ypt.c Link: ClangBuiltLinux/linux#1966 Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
[ 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>
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>
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>
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>
BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2064514 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> (backported from commit 8deb05c) Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> Acked-by: John Cabaj <john.cabaj@canonical.com> Acked-by: Philip Cox <philip.cox@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2064514 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> (backported from commit 8deb05c) Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> Acked-by: John Cabaj <john.cabaj@canonical.com> Acked-by: Philip Cox <philip.cox@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2082641 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> (cherry picked from commit 8deb05c) Signed-off-by: John Cabaj <john.cabaj@canonical.com> Acked-by: Magali Lemes <magali.lemes@canonical.com> Acked-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@canonical.com> Signed-off-by: John Cabaj <john.cabaj@canonical.com>
After llvm/llvm-project@d77067d, I see a warning in
fs/smb/client/cifsencrypt.c
with multiple architectures.cvise
spits out:@ llvm/llvm-project@a1b9736:
@ llvm/llvm-project@d77067d:
GCC 13.2.0 also does not show any warning.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: