[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72m6OuzN_gDiEhpLXY+2=5=m=1s5U-kDe=xpJmOVyE+hSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 04:05:55 +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 Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> What I'm *not* so much ok with is "const_max(5,sizeof(x))" erroring
>> out, or silently causing insane behavior due to hidden subtle type
>> casts..
>
> Yup! I like it as an explicit argument. Thanks!
>
What about something like this?
#define INTMAXT_MAX LLONG_MAX
typedef int64_t intmax_t;
#define const_max(x, y) \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
!__builtin_constant_p(x) || !__builtin_constant_p(y), \
__error_not_const_arg(), \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
(x) > INTMAXT_MAX || (y) > INTMAXT_MAX, \
__error_too_big(), \
__builtin_choose_expr( \
(intmax_t)(x) >= (intmax_t)(y), \
(x), \
(y) \
) \
) \
)
Works for different types, allows to mix negatives and positives and
returns the original type, e.g.:
const_max(-1, sizeof(char));
is of type 'long unsigned int', but:
const_max(2, sizeof(char));
is of type 'int'. While I am not a fan that the return type depends on
the arguments, it is useful if you are going to use the expression in
something that needs expects a precise (a printk() for instance?).
The check against the INTMAXT_MAX is there to avoid complexity (if we
do not handle those cases, it is safe to use intmax_t for the
comparison; otherwise you have to have another compile time branch for
the case positive-positive using uintmax_t) and also avoids odd
warnings for some cases above LLONG_MAX about comparisons with 0 for
unsigned expressions being always true. On the positive side, it
prevents using the macro for thing like "(size_t)-1".
Cheers,
Miguel
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.
