On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 10:50 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 02:42:04PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:25:04 -0700, Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:15:37PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:25:48 +0530, Nitin Gote <nitin.r.g...@intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 1. Deprecate strcpy() in favor of strscpy().
> > > >
> > > > This isn’t a comment “against” this patch, but something I’ve been
> > > > wondering recently and which raises a question about how to handle
> > > > strcpy’s deprecation in particular. There is still one scenario where
> > > > strcpy is useful: when GCC replaces it with its builtin, inline
> > > > version...
> > > >
> > > > Would it be worth introducing a macro for strcpy-from-constant-string,
> > > > which would check that GCC’s builtin is being used (when building with
> > > > GCC), and fall back to strscpy otherwise?
> > >
> > > How would you suggest it operate? A separate API, or something like the
> > > existing overloaded strcpy() macros in string.h?
> >
> > The latter; in my mind the point is to simplify the thought process for
> > developers, so strscpy should be the “obvious” choice in all cases, even
> > when
> > dealing with constant strings in hot paths. Something like
> >
> > __FORTIFY_INLINE ssize_t strscpy(char *dest, const char *src, size_t count)
> > {
> > size_t dest_size = __builtin_object_size(dest, 0);
> > size_t src_size = __builtin_object_size(src, 0);
> > if (__builtin_constant_p(count) &&
> > __builtin_constant_p(src_size) &&
> > __builtin_constant_p(dest_size) &&
> > src_size <= count &&
> > src_size <= dest_size &&
> > src[src_size - 1] == '\0') {
> > strcpy(dest, src);
> > return src_size - 1;
> > } else {
> > return __strscpy(dest, src, count);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > with the current strscpy renamed to __strscpy. I imagine it’s not necessary
> > to tie this to FORTIFY — __OPTIMIZE__ should be sufficient, shouldn’t it?
> > Although building on top of the fortified strcpy is reassuring, and I might
> > be missing something. I’m also not sure how to deal with the backing
> > strscpy:
> > weak symbol, or something else... At least there aren’t (yet) any
> > arch-specific implementations of strscpy to deal with, but obviously they’d
> > still need to be supportable.
> >
> > In my tests, this all gets optimised away, and we end up with code such as
> >
> > strscpy(raead.type, "aead", sizeof(raead.type));
> >
> > being compiled down to
> >
> > movl $1684104545, 4(%rsp)
> >
> > on x86-64, and non-constant code being compiled down to a direct __strscpy
> > call.
>
> Thanks for the details! Yeah, that seems nice. I wonder if there is a
> sensible way to combine these also with the stracpy*() proposal[1], so the
> call in your example above could just be:
>
> stracpy(raead.type, "aead");
>
> (It seems both proposals together would have the correct result...)
>
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/201907221031.8B87A9DE@keescook
Easy enough to do.
