From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECK Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:52:57 -0800 Message-ID: <512E8E49.3050206@zytor.com> References: <1361934016-22630-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <201302272032.21014.arnd@arndb.de> <512E6FA9.4060504@codeaurora.org> <512E8664.3070903@zytor.com> <20130228094510.3341017130e4476e046bdd22@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130228094510.3341017130e4476e046bdd22@canb.auug.org.au> List-Archive: List-Post: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Stephen Boyd , Arnd Bergmann , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven , Helge Deller , Heiko Carstens , Chris Metcalf List-ID: On 02/27/2013 02:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:19:16 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" > wrote: >> >> Although some of the cases I have seen being flagged as "false >> positives" have been real bugs. > > [hijacking the thread :-)] > > I have been getting this warning for a very long time ( which would > be an error if CONFIG_DEBUG_STRICT_USER_COPY_CHECK was set): > > i386 defconfig i386-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.6.3 > > In file included from arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:537:0, from > include/linux/uaccess.h:5, from include/linux/highmem.h:8, from > include/linux/pagemap.h:10, from fs/binfmt_misc.c:27: > arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_32.h: In function > 'parse_command.part.2': arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess_32.h:211:26: > warning: call to 'copy_from_user_overflow' declared with attribute > warning: copy_from_user() buffer size is not provably correct > [enabled by default] > OK, that is surprising, because that copy is very clearly properly guarded: static int parse_command(const char __user *buffer, size_t count) { char s[4]; if (!count) return 0; if (count > 3) return -EINVAL; if (copy_from_user(s, buffer, count)) return -EFAULT; It isn't possible for count to be anything other than 1, 2 or 3 there, and it is very surprising that gcc can't see it. This might be worth filing a gcc bug for. -hpa