Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc_size warning

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Alexandre Bounine <alex.bou9@gmail.com>,
	Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>,
	"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc_size warning
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 13:27:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210909132752.4bde36ccf50720e56160f00c@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210909161409.2250920-1-keescook@chromium.org>

On Thu,  9 Sep 2021 09:14:09 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> GCC 9.3 (but not later) incorrectly evaluates the arguments to
> check_copy_size(), getting seemingly confused by the size being returned
> from array_size(). Instead, perform the calculation once, which both
> makes the code more readable and avoids the bug in GCC.
> 
>    In file included from arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:7,
>                     from include/linux/preempt.h:78,
>                     from include/linux/spinlock.h:55,
>                     from include/linux/mm_types.h:9,
>                     from include/linux/buildid.h:5,
>                     from include/linux/module.h:14,
>                     from drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:13:
>    In function 'check_copy_size',
>        inlined from 'copy_from_user' at include/linux/uaccess.h:191:6,
>        inlined from 'rio_mport_transfer_ioctl' at drivers/rapidio/devices/rio_mport_cdev.c:983:6:
>    include/linux/thread_info.h:213:4: error: call to '__bad_copy_to' declared with attribute error: copy destination size is too small
>      213 |    __bad_copy_to();
>          |    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> But the allocation size and the copy size are identical:
> 
> 	transfer = vmalloc(array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count));
> 	if (!transfer)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> 	if (unlikely(copy_from_user(transfer,
> 				    (void __user *)(uintptr_t)transaction.block,
> 				    array_size(sizeof(*transfer), transaction.count)))) {

That's an "error", not a warning.  Or is this thanks to the new -Werror?

Either way, I'm inclined to cc:stable on this, because use of gcc-9 on
older kernels will be a common thing down the ages.

If it's really an "error" on non-Werror kernels then definitely cc:stable.