From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2661C2BA1A for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F73206B8 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:10:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZoOiWzuO" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 79F73206B8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 28AFC8E007A; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 23:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 213658E0062; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 23:10:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 102938E007A; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 23:10:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0037.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.37]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94708E0062 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 23:10:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D34801B427 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:10:14 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76679580348.12.maid50_20a0d111d42a X-HE-Tag: maid50_20a0d111d42a X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5407 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf39.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-231-172-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.172.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E51092083E; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 03:10:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1586229013; bh=w8ESKfJ1i7BxYD2MfzWR3j/z8gLVXQ3FZlj8y3O+R/Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZoOiWzuO/VXYQ5aF4ZRYXSKwVSalBOoa8sFo9WgFi5R1Gg71DVHra/LxiotVLmWEc 2ZDgz2V/YL4VFAl8HkkzFJ2i1/t/kwto/u0+KW8LKyEeDxLFonRvjuy1gNwYglUYFd hvGRT7mdJYIOjWNAxdndPa9ED6u83pXcK1RpP0Dg= Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:10:12 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, glider@google.com, jannh@google.com, keescook@chromium.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: [patch 116/166] lib: test_stackinit.c: XFAIL switch variable init tests Message-ID: <20200407031012.k4Ehy3SAU%akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20200406200254.a69ebd9e08c4074e41ddebaf@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: s-nail v14.8.16 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: From: Kees Cook Subject: lib: test_stackinit.c: XFAIL switch variable init tests The tests for initializing a variable defined between a switch statement's test and its first "case" statement are currently not initialized in Clang[1] nor the proposed auto-initialization feature in GCC. We should retain the test (so that we can evaluate compiler fixes), but mark it as an "expected fail". The rest of the kernel source will be adjusted to avoid this corner case. Also disable -Wswitch-unreachable for the test so that the intentionally broken code won't trigger warnings for GCC (nor future Clang) when initialization happens this unhandled place. [1] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44916 Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/202002191358.2897A07C6@keescook Signed-off-by: Kees Cook Suggested-by: Alexander Potapenko Cc: Jann Horn Cc: Ard Biesheuvel Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- lib/Makefile | 1 + lib/test_stackinit.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) --- a/lib/Makefile~lib-test_stackinitc-xfail-switch-variable-init-tests +++ a/lib/Makefile @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_KMOD) += test_kmod.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_DEBUG_VIRTUAL) += test_debug_virtual.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_MEMCAT_P) += test_memcat_p.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_OBJAGG) += test_objagg.o +CFLAGS_test_stackinit.o += $(call cc-disable-warning, switch-unreachable) obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STACKINIT) += test_stackinit.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_BLACKHOLE_DEV) += test_blackhole_dev.o obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_MEMINIT) += test_meminit.o --- a/lib/test_stackinit.c~lib-test_stackinitc-xfail-switch-variable-init-tests +++ a/lib/test_stackinit.c @@ -92,8 +92,9 @@ static bool range_contains(char *haystac * @var_type: type to be tested for zeroing initialization * @which: is this a SCALAR, STRING, or STRUCT type? * @init_level: what kind of initialization is performed + * @xfail: is this test expected to fail? */ -#define DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(name, var_type, which) \ +#define DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(name, var_type, which, xfail) \ /* Returns 0 on success, 1 on failure. */ \ static noinline __init int test_ ## name (void) \ { \ @@ -139,13 +140,14 @@ static noinline __init int test_ ## name for (sum = 0, i = 0; i < target_size; i++) \ sum += (check_buf[i] == 0xFF); \ \ - if (sum == 0) \ + if (sum == 0) { \ pr_info(#name " ok\n"); \ - else \ - pr_warn(#name " FAIL (uninit bytes: %d)\n", \ - sum); \ - \ - return (sum != 0); \ + return 0; \ + } else { \ + pr_warn(#name " %sFAIL (uninit bytes: %d)\n", \ + (xfail) ? "X" : "", sum); \ + return (xfail) ? 0 : 1; \ + } \ } #define DEFINE_TEST(name, var_type, which, init_level) \ /* no-op to force compiler into ignoring "uninitialized" vars */\ @@ -189,7 +191,7 @@ static noinline __init int leaf_ ## name \ return (int)buf[0] | (int)buf[sizeof(buf) - 1]; \ } \ -DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(name, var_type, which) +DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(name, var_type, which, 0) /* Structure with no padding. */ struct test_packed { @@ -326,8 +328,14 @@ static noinline __init int leaf_switch_2 return __leaf_switch_none(2, fill); } -DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(switch_1_none, uint64_t, SCALAR); -DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(switch_2_none, uint64_t, SCALAR); +/* + * These are expected to fail for most configurations because neither + * GCC nor Clang have a way to perform initialization of variables in + * non-code areas (i.e. in a switch statement before the first "case"). + * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44916 + */ +DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(switch_1_none, uint64_t, SCALAR, 1); +DEFINE_TEST_DRIVER(switch_2_none, uint64_t, SCALAR, 1); static int __init test_stackinit_init(void) { _