On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 13:24, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 03:33:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is a series to work around a deficiency in GCC (>=11) and Clang >> (<16) where the __alloc_size attribute does not apply to inlines. :( >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96503 >> >> This manifests as reduced overflow detection coverage for many allocation >> sites under CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y, where the allocation size was >> not actually being propagated to __builtin_dynamic_object_size(). In >> addition to working around the issue, expand use of __alloc_size (and >> __realloc_size) to more places and provide KUnit tests to validate all >> the covered allocator APIs. > > Hello Kees! > > It would appear that one of the macros you've added here is doing Bad > Things^TM to allmodconfig on RISC-V since the 22nd: > > ../lib/fortify_kunit.c: In function 'alloc_size_kmalloc_const_test': > ../lib/fortify_kunit.c:140:1: error: the frame size of 2384 bytes is > larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > 140 | } > \ > | ^ > ../lib/fortify_kunit.c:209:1: note: in expansion of macro > 'DEFINE_ALLOC_SIZE_TEST_PAIR' > 209 | DEFINE_ALLOC_SIZE_TEST_PAIR(kmalloc) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > CONFIG_GCC_VERSION=110100 > CONFIG_AS_VERSION=23700 > CONFIG_LD_VERSION=23700 > > The report came out of my CI (which I should have passed on sooner) so > I do not have anything other than stderr - I can get you anything else > you'd like/need though if you LMK. There is generally a conflict between kunit and the structleak gcc plugin, I think the Makefile needs a line like CFLAGS_fortify_kunit.o += $(DISABLE_STRUCTLEAK_PLUGIN) Arnd
