lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] compiler.h: give up __compiletime_assert_fallback()
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> __compiletime_assert_fallback() is supposed to stop building earlier
> by using the negative-array-size method in case the compiler does not
> support "error" attribute, but has never worked like that.
>
> You can try this simple code:
>
> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> void foo(void)
> {
> BUILD_BUG_ON(1);
> }
>
> GCC (precisely, GCC 4.3 or later) immediately terminates the build,
> but Clang does not report anything because Clang does not support the
> "error" attribute now. It will eventually fail in the link stage,
> but at least __compiletime_assert_fallback() is not working.
>
> The root cause is commit 1d6a0d19c855 ("bug.h: prevent double evaluation
> of `condition' in BUILD_BUG_ON"). Prior to that commit, BUILD_BUG_ON()
> was checked by the negative-array-size method *and* the link-time trick.
> Since that commit, the negative-array-size is not effective because
> '__cond' is no longer constant. As the comment in <linux/build_bug.h>
> says, GCC (and Clang as well) only emits the error for obvious cases.
>
> When '__cond' is a variable,
>
> ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * __cond]))
>
> ... is not obvious for the compiler to know the array size is negative.
>
> One way to fix this is to stop the variable assignment, i.e. to pass
> '!(condition)' directly to __compiletime_error_fallback() at the cost
> of the double evaluation of 'condition'. However, all calls of
> BUILD_BUG() would be turned into errors even if they are called from
> dead-code.
>
> This commit does not change the current behavior since it just rips
> off the code that has not been effective for some years.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>

Yeah, Clang would only complain about the VLA (and not error) and then
later fail at link time. This seems like a reasonable change to me.

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-Kees

> ---
>
> include/linux/compiler.h | 17 +----------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
> index 42506e4..c062238f4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/compiler.h
> +++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
> @@ -295,29 +295,14 @@ unsigned long read_word_at_a_time(const void *addr)
> #endif
> #ifndef __compiletime_error
> # define __compiletime_error(message)
> -/*
> - * Sparse complains of variable sized arrays due to the temporary variable in
> - * __compiletime_assert. Unfortunately we can't just expand it out to make
> - * sparse see a constant array size without breaking compiletime_assert on old
> - * versions of GCC (e.g. 4.2.4), so hide the array from sparse altogether.
> - */
> -# ifndef __CHECKER__
> -# define __compiletime_error_fallback(condition) \
> - do { ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * condition])); } while (0)
> -# endif
> -#endif
> -#ifndef __compiletime_error_fallback
> -# define __compiletime_error_fallback(condition) do { } while (0)
> #endif
>
> #ifdef __OPTIMIZE__
> # define __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix) \
> do { \
> - bool __cond = !(condition); \
> extern void prefix ## suffix(void) __compiletime_error(msg); \
> - if (__cond) \
> + if (!(condition)) \
> prefix ## suffix(); \
> - __compiletime_error_fallback(__cond); \
> } while (0)
> #else
> # define __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix) do { } while (0)
> --
> 2.7.4
>



--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-19 18:14    [W:0.068 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site