From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tycho Andersen Subject: Re: [RFC v1] copy_{to,from}_user(): only inline when !__CHECKER__ Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 14:25:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20181209212523.GE30796@cisco> References: <20181209204449.18906-1-tycho@tycho.ws> <20181209210220.GB2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181209210220.GB2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Hi Al, On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 09:02:21PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 01:44:49PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > While working on some additional copy_to_user() checks for sparse, I > > noticed that sparse's current copy_to_user() checks are not triggered. This > > is because copy_to_user() is declared as __always_inline, and sparse > > specifically looks for a call instruction to copy_to_user() when it tries > > to apply the checks. > > > > A quick fix is to explicitly not inline when __CHECKER__ is defined, so > > that sparse will be able to analyze all the copy_{to,from}_user calls. > > There may be some refactoring in sparse that we can do to fix this, > > although it's not immediately obvious to me how, hence the RFC-ness of this > > patch. > > Which sparse checks do not trigger? Explain, please - as it is, I had been > unable to guess what could "specifically looks for a call instruction" refer > to. In sparse.c there's check_call_instruction(), which is triggered when there's an instruction of OP_CALL type in the basic block. This simply compares against the name of the call target to determine whether or not to call check_ctu(). I think what's happening here is that the call is getting inlined, and so the OP_CALL goes away, and check_call_instruction() never gets called. Tycho