[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72k4qvXBy-VbFc5uOh-wAMx0yui5JokzX=NXtgZJ6F_NEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:58:10 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] kernel.h: Introduce const_max() for VLA removal
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
>>> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with non-compile-time constant arg");
>>> #define const_max(x, y) \
>>> __builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(x) && \
>>> __builtin_constant_p(y), \
>>> (typeof(x))(x) > (typeof(y))(y) ? \
>>> (x) : (y), \
>>> __error_not_const_arg())
>>>
>>> Is typeof() forcing enums to int? Regardless, I'll put this through
>>> larger testing. How does that look?
>>
>> Ok, that alleviates my worry about one class of insane behavior, but
>> it does raise a few other questions:
>>
>> - what drugs is gcc on where (typeof(x)(x)) makes a difference? Funky.
>
> Yeah, that's why I didn't even try that originally. But in looking
> back at max() again, it seemed to be the only thing missing that would
> handle the enum evaluation, which turned out to be true.
>
>> - this does have the usual "what happen if you do
>>
>> const_max(-1,sizeof(x))
>>
>> where the comparison will now be done in 'size_t', and -1 ends up
>> being a very very big unsigned integer.
>>
>> Is there no way to get that type checking inserted? Maybe now is a
>> good point for that __builtin_types_compatible(), and add it to the
>> constness checking (and change the name of that error case function)?
>
> So, AIUI, I can either get strict type checking, in which case, this
> is rejected (which I assume there is still a desire to have):
>
> int foo[const_max(6, sizeof(whatever))];
Is it that bad to just call it with (size_t)6?
>
> due to __builtin_types_compatible_p() rejecting it, or I can construct
> a "positive arguments only" test, in which the above is accepted, but
> this is rejected:
>
> int foo[const_max(-1, sizeof(whatever))];
Do we need this case?
>
> By using this eye-bleed:
>
> size_t __error_not_const_arg(void) \
> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with non-compile-time constant arg");
> size_t __error_not_positive_arg(void) \
> __compiletime_error("const_max() used with negative arg");
> #define const_max(x, y) \
> __builtin_choose_expr(__builtin_constant_p(x) && \
> __builtin_constant_p(y), \
> __builtin_choose_expr((x) >= 0 && (y) >= 0, \
> (typeof(x))(x) > (typeof(y))(y) ? \
> (x) : (y), \
> __error_not_positive_arg()), \
> __error_not_const_arg())
>
I was writing it like this:
#define const_max(a, b) \
({ \
if ((a) < 0) \
__const_max_called_with_negative_value(); \
if ((b) < 0) \
__const_max_called_with_negative_value(); \
if (!__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))) \
__const_max_called_with_incompatible_types(); \
__builtin_choose_expr((a) > (b), (a), (b)); \
})
Cheers,
Miguel
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
