From: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
To: david.laight.linux@gmail.com
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 3/3] fortify: Simplify strlen() logic
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 23:18:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202603302312.29AE002@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260330132003.3379-4-david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 02:20:03PM +0100, david.laight.linux@gmail.com wrote:
> From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
>
> The __builtin_choose_expr() doesn't gain you anything, replace with
> a simple ?: operator.
> Then __is_constexpr() can then be replaced with __builtin_constant_p().
> This still works for static initialisers - the expression can contain
> a function call - provided it isn't actually called.
>
> Calling the strnlen() wrapper just add a lot more logic to read through.
> Replace with a call to __real_strnlen().
>
> However the compiler can decide that __builtin_constant_p(__builtin_strlen(p))
> is false, but split as ret = __builtin_strlen(p); __builtin_constant_p(ret)
> and it suddenly becomes true.
> So an additional check is needed before calling __real_strnlen().
Ah, there it is, exactly the issue I'm remembering, see
commit 4f3d1be4c2f8 ("compiler.h: add const_true()")
Instead of this patch, I should likely replace the open-coded versions
of const_true() here.
Regardless, we should not change this or the compiletime_strlen() macro
as you've suggested, IMO. They both work as they already are, so I see
no reason re-open this can of worms without a good reason.
What was the specific code that caused an issue for you with
__fortify_strlen ?
-Kees
>
> Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
> ---
> include/linux/fortify-string.h | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fortify-string.h b/include/linux/fortify-string.h
> index 758afd7c5f8a..6cd670492270 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fortify-string.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fortify-string.h
> @@ -230,9 +230,8 @@ __FORTIFY_INLINE __kernel_size_t strnlen(const char * const POS p, __kernel_size
> }
>
> /*
> - * Defined after fortified strnlen to reuse it. However, it must still be
> - * possible for strlen() to be used on compile-time strings for use in
> - * static initializers (i.e. as a constant expression).
> + * strlen() of a compile-time string needs to be a constant expression
> + * so it can be used, for example, as a static initializer.
> */
> /**
> * strlen - Return count of characters in a NUL-terminated string
> @@ -247,9 +246,9 @@ __FORTIFY_INLINE __kernel_size_t strnlen(const char * const POS p, __kernel_size
> * Returns number of characters in @p (NOT including the final NUL).
> *
> */
> -#define strlen(p) \
> - __builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(__builtin_strlen(p)), \
> - __builtin_strlen(p), __fortify_strlen(p))
> +#define strlen(p) \
> + (__builtin_constant_p(__builtin_strlen(p)) ? \
> + __builtin_strlen(p) : __fortify_strlen(p))
> __FORTIFY_INLINE __diagnose_as(__builtin_strlen, 1)
> __kernel_size_t __fortify_strlen(const char * const POS p)
> {
> @@ -259,7 +258,14 @@ __kernel_size_t __fortify_strlen(const char * const POS p)
> /* 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);
> + /*
> + * 'ret' can be constant here even though the __builtin_constant_p(__builtin_strlen(p))
> + * in the #define wrapper is false.
> + */
> + ret = __builtin_strlen(p);
> + if (__builtin_constant_p(ret))
> + return ret;
> + ret = __real_strnlen(p, p_size);
> if (p_size <= ret)
> fortify_panic(FORTIFY_FUNC_strlen, FORTIFY_READ, p_size, ret + 1, ret);
> return ret;
> --
> 2.39.5
>
--
Kees Cook
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-31 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-30 13:20 [PATCH next 0/3] fortify: Minor changes to strlen() and strnlen() david.laight.linux
2026-03-30 13:20 ` [PATCH next 1/3] fortify: replace __compiletime_lessthan() with statically_true() david.laight.linux
2026-03-30 23:50 ` Kees Cook
2026-03-30 13:20 ` [PATCH next 2/3] fortify: Optimise strnlen() david.laight.linux
2026-03-30 23:54 ` Kees Cook
2026-03-31 22:09 ` David Laight
2026-03-31 23:51 ` Kees Cook
2026-04-01 13:48 ` David Laight
2026-04-03 8:50 ` David Laight
2026-03-31 6:36 ` Kees Cook
2026-03-31 10:14 ` David Laight
2026-03-31 14:55 ` David Laight
2026-03-31 15:56 ` Kees Cook
2026-04-01 0:15 ` kernel test robot
2026-04-03 8:23 ` David Laight
2026-03-30 13:20 ` [PATCH next 3/3] fortify: Simplify strlen() logic david.laight.linux
2026-03-31 6:07 ` Kees Cook
2026-03-31 8:58 ` David Laight
2026-03-31 6:18 ` Kees Cook [this message]
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=202603302312.29AE002@keescook \
--to=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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