On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 10:01:50AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Anders Roxell > > Sent: 02 December 2022 00:58 > > > > On 2022-10-28 14:05, Kees Cook wrote: > > > GCC 12 appears to perform constant propagation incompletely(?) and can > > > no longer notice that "len" is always 0 when "data" is NULL. Expand the > > > check to avoid warnings about memcpy() having a NULL argument: > > > > > > ... > > > from drivers/crypto/caam/key_gen.c:8: > > > drivers/crypto/caam/desc_constr.h: In function 'append_data.constprop': > > > include/linux/fortify-string.h:48:33: warning: argument 2 null where non-null expected [- > > Wnonnull] > > > 48 | #define __underlying_memcpy __builtin_memcpy > > > | ^ > > > include/linux/fortify-string.h:438:9: note: in expansion of macro '__underlying_memcpy' > > > 438 | __underlying_##op(p, q, __fortify_size); \ > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ... > > Is this really a bug in the fortify-string wrappers? > IIRC the call is memcpy(NULL, ptr, 0) (or maybe memcpy(ptr, NULL, 0). > In either case call can be removed at compile time. > > I'd bet that the constant propagation of 'len' fails because > of all the intermediate variables that get used in order to > avoid multiple evaluation. > > The some 'tricks' that are used in min() (see minmax.h) to > generate a constant output for constant input could be > use to detect a compile-time zero length. > > Something like: > #define memcpy(dst, src, len) \ > (__is_constzero(len) ? (dst) : memcpy_check(dst, src, len)) > > With: > #define __is_constzero(x) sizeof(*(1 ? (void *)(x) : (int *)0) != 1) > Which could go into const.h and used in the definition of __is_constexpr(). While it could be possible to strip the nonnull attribute, I think it's not an unreasonable check to have. This is literally the only case in the entire kernel that is tripped, for example. -- Kees Cook
