From: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
To: Nguyen Ngoc Thang <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>,
"Tingmao Wang" <m@maowtm.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
syzbot+a0eecb22de4d821a9e5d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] landlock: Drop __counted_by from landlock_domain.layers
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2026 15:11:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261011.c1055cd53b32@gnoack.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261010164450.194439-1-ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 10, 2026 at 11:44:49PM +0700, Nguyen Ngoc Thang wrote:
> With clang 22 and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, the second
> landlock_restrict_self() call hits a bogus fortify report in
> inherit_ruleset():
>
> memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 16 byte read of buffer size 0
> Call Trace:
> __fortify_panic
> landlock_merge_ruleset+0xc46/0xc90
> __se_sys_landlock_restrict_self+0x2bc/0xd40
>
> layers[] lives in an anonymous struct inside the anonymous union
> that overlays work_free. For such a flexible array, clang computes the
> address of the __counted_by counter as the start of the array instead of
> &num_layers. The bound is then read from layers[0], i.e. from
> the first layer's configuration, which is not a count. The same layout
> crashes clang itself in a standalone test.
>
> The annotation was added as documentation, so drop it rather than
> restructure the union. Keep the information in the member comment.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+a0eecb22de4d821a9e5d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=a0eecb22de4d821a9e5d
> Fixes: bd3a19800dd1 ("landlock: Add counted_by in landlock_domain")
> Signed-off-by: Nguyen Ngoc Thang <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
> ---
> Reproduced with clang 22.1.8 and FORTIFY_SOURCE on mic/next (64b9e6eff524):
> the second landlock_restrict_self() hits the report, while 16 nested
> restricts run clean with this patch. Mickaël, if you prefer to just drop
> bd3a19800dd1 from next, that works as well.
> security/landlock/domain.h | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/landlock/domain.h b/security/landlock/domain.h
> index 60e8eb2d6ac2..4bf1555a4349 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/domain.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/domain.h
> @@ -246,8 +246,12 @@ struct landlock_domain {
> * properly handle merged rulesets without overlapping
> * access rights. These layers are set once and never
> * changed for the lifetime of the domain.
> + *
> + * Not annotated with __counted_by(@num_layers): clang
> + * miscomputes the counter address for a FAM nested in an
> + * anonymous struct within a union, which trips FORTIFY.
> */
> - struct layer_config layers[] __counted_by(num_layers);
> + struct layer_config layers[];
> };
> };
> };
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
I agree - it seems better to drop the __counted_by rather than
restructuring the entire struct for that.
Thanks also for adding a comment about it. The __counted_by() has
only been added very recently in September, in commit bd3a19800dd1
("landlock: Add counted_by in landlock_domain"). Better to have a
note about it so that we don't accidentally add it back. :)
–Günther
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-11 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-09 17:04 [syzbot] [lsm?] WARNING in landlock_merge_ruleset syzbot
2026-10-10 16:44 ` [PATCH] landlock: Drop __counted_by from landlock_domain.layers Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-10 18:05 ` Alejandro Colomar
2026-10-10 18:46 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-10-11 2:57 ` Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-11 13:11 ` Günther Noack [this message]
2026-10-11 14:31 ` Mickaël Salaün
2026-10-11 15:59 ` Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-11 16:16 ` Mickaël Salaün
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261011.c1055cd53b32@gnoack.org \
--to=gnoack3000@gmail.com \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=m@maowtm.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com \
--cc=syzbot+a0eecb22de4d821a9e5d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox