From: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: fix more unit tests with CONFIG_UBSAN_LOCAL_BOUNDS enabled
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:21:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMn1gO563a+GZrob6XpgZhhTgy9drjSA+LUpBHBkojHteVc7NA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANpmjNMfemciY2Qn7aZ1Z0EvTA21CqZ6zei+dncGMedWr0-6cQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:20 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 02:26, Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is a followup to commit f649dc0e0d7b ("kasan: fix unit tests
> > with CONFIG_UBSAN_LOCAL_BOUNDS enabled") that fixes tests that fail
> > as a result of __alloc_size annotations being added to the kernel
> > allocator functions.
> >
> > Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I4334cafc5db600fda5cebb851b2ee9fd09fb46cc
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.16.x
> > Fixes: c37495d6254c ("slab: add __alloc_size attributes for better bounds checking")
> > ---
> > lib/test_kasan.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/test_kasan.c b/lib/test_kasan.c
> > index 26a5c9007653..3bf8801d0e66 100644
> > --- a/lib/test_kasan.c
> > +++ b/lib/test_kasan.c
> > @@ -177,7 +177,8 @@ static void kmalloc_node_oob_right(struct kunit *test)
> > */
> > static void kmalloc_pagealloc_oob_right(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > - char *ptr;
> > + /* See comment in kasan_global_oob_right. */
> > + char *volatile ptr;
> > size_t size = KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE + 10;
>
> I think more recently we've been using OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR() to hide
> things from the compiler. Does OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(ptr) right before
> the access also work in this case?
>
> I leave it to you which you think is cleaner - I'm guessing that we
> might want to avoid volatile if we can.
Okay, sent v2 which uses OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR.
Peter
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-24 0:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-19 1:26 Peter Collingbourne
2022-02-21 11:20 ` Marco Elver
2022-02-24 0:21 ` Peter Collingbourne [this message]
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=CAMn1gO563a+GZrob6XpgZhhTgy9drjSA+LUpBHBkojHteVc7NA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pcc@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@gmail.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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