Building the Linux kernel with Clang and LLVM
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
To: "Günther Noack" <gnoack3000@gmail.com>
Cc: "Nguyen Ngoc Thang" <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>,
	"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 16:31:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261011.oe8teu2LahTh@digikod.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261011.c1055cd53b32@gnoack.org>

On Sun, Oct 11, 2026 at 03:11:12PM +0200, Günther Noack wrote:
> 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>

Thanks for the patch.

> > ---
> > 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. :)

Actually, I independently wrote a quite similar patch (while traveling),
but it applies to v7.3-rc5 instead of mic/next.  I removed the patch
series that I applied on mic/next because it conflicts with my patch and
I need to send a new version anyway.  If you don't mind, I'll keep
Günther's Reviewed-by tag and credit other contributors in my patch.
I'll propose it for v7.3-rc7 (today) because it is trivial and will help
new patches on top of that.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-11 14:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <6ac91e98.bbc4c7f9.15faa7.0023.GAE@google.com>
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
2026-10-11 14:31     ` Mickaël Salaün [this message]
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.oe8teu2LahTh@digikod.net \
    --to=mic@digikod.net \
    --cc=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=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