Compiler Attributes: add __alloc_size() for better bounds checking

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>

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index ed6e7ec60eff..d09ac84a170b 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -1008,6 +1008,21 @@ ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
 KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
 endif
 
+ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_GCC
+# The allocators already balk at large sizes, so silence the compiler
+# warnings for bounds checks involving those possible values. While
+# -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than would normally be used here, earlier versions
+# of gcc (<9.1) weirdly don't handle the option correctly when _other_
+# warnings are produced (?!). Using -Walloc-size-larger-than=SIZE_MAX
+# doesn't work (as it is documented to), silently resolving to "0" prior to
+# version 9.1 (and producing an error more recently). Numeric values larger
+# than PTRDIFF_MAX also don't work prior to version 9.1, which are silently
+# ignored, continuing to default to PTRDIFF_MAX. So, left with no other
+# choice, we must perform a versioned check to disable this warning.
+# https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210824115859.187f272f@canb.auug.org.au
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 0901, -Wno-alloc-size-larger-than)
+endif
+
 # disable invalid "can't wrap" optimizations for signed / pointers
 KBUILD_CFLAGS	+= -fno-strict-overflow