GCC and Clang can use the "alloc_size" attribute to better inform the
results of __builtin_object_size() (for compile-time constant values).
Clang can additionally use alloc_size to inform the results of
__builtin_dynamic_object_size() (for run-time values).
Because GCC sees the frequent use of struct_size() as an allocator size
argument, and notices it can return SIZE_MAX (the overflow indication),
it complains about these call sites overflowing (since SIZE_MAX is
greater than the default -Walloc-size-larger-than=PTRDIFF_MAX). This
isn't helpful since we already know a SIZE_MAX will be caught at
run-time (this was an intentional design). To deal with this, we must
disable this check as it is both a false positive and redundant. (Clang
does not have this warning option.)
Unfortunately, just checking the -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than is not
sufficient to make the __alloc_size attribute behave correctly under
older GCC versions. The attribute itself must be disabled in those
situations too, as there appears to be no way to reliably silence the
SIZE_MAX constant expression cases for GCC versions less than 9.1:
In file included from ./include/linux/resource_ext.h:11,
from ./include/linux/pci.h:40,
from drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe.h:9,
from drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_lib.c:4:
In function 'kmalloc_node',
inlined from 'ixgbe_alloc_q_vector' at ./include/linux/slab.h:743:9:
./include/linux/slab.h:618:9: error: argument 1 value '18446744073709551615' exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=alloc-size-larger-than=]
return __kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./include/linux/slab.h: In function 'ixgbe_alloc_q_vector':
./include/linux/slab.h:455:7: note: in a call to allocation function '__kmalloc_node' declared here
void *__kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node) __assume_slab_alignment __malloc;
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Specifically:
'-Wno-alloc-size-larger-than' is not correctly handled by GCC < 9.1
https://godbolt.org/z/hqsfG7q84 (doesn't disable)
https://godbolt.org/z/P9jdrPTYh (doesn't admit to not knowing about option)
https://godbolt.org/z/465TPMWKb (only warns when other warnings appear)
'-Walloc-size-larger-than=18446744073709551615' is not handled by GCC < 8.2
https://godbolt.org/z/73hh1EPxz (ignores numeric value)
Since anything marked with __alloc_size would also qualify for marking
with __malloc, just include __malloc along with it to avoid redundant
markings. (Suggested by Linus Torvalds.)
Finally, make sure checkpatch.pl doesn't get confused about finding the
__alloc_size attribute on functions. (Thanks to Joe Perches.)
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210930222704.2631604-3-keescook@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Alexandre Bounine <alex.bou9@gmail.com>
Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc: Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
86cffecdea