[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d190601-68f1-c086-97ac-2ee1c08f5a34@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:38:58 +0200
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] saturate check_*_overflow() output?
On 04/08/2020 21.23, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 08:11:45AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> What we might do, to deal with the "caller fails to check the result",
>> is to add a
>>
>> static inline bool __must_check must_check_overflow(bool b) { return
>> unlikely(b); }
>>
>> and wrap all the final "did it overflow" results in that one - perhaps
>> also for the __builtin_* cases, I don't know if those are automatically
>> equipped with that attribute. [I also don't know if gcc propagates
>> likely/unlikely out to the caller, but it shouldn't hurt to have it
>> there and might improve code gen if it does.]
>
> (What is the formal name for the ({ ...; return_value; }) C construct?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html
> Will that work as a macro return value? If so, that's extremely useful.
Yes and no. Just wrapping the last expression in the statement
expression with my must_check_overflow(), as in
@@ -67,17 +72,18 @@
typeof(d) __d = (d); \
(void) (&__a == &__b); \
(void) (&__a == __d); \
- __builtin_sub_overflow(__a, __b, __d); \
+ must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(__a, __b, __d)); \
})
does not appear to work. For some reason, this can't be (ab)used to
overrule the __must_check this simply:
- kstrtoint(a, b, c);
+ ({ kstrtoint(a, b, c); });
still gives a warning for kstrtoint(). But failing to use the result of
check_sub_overflow() as patched above does not give a warning.
I'm guessing gcc has some internal very early simplification that
replaces single-expression statement-exprs with just that expression,
and the warn-unused-result triggers later. But as soon as the
statement-expr becomes a little non-trivial (e.g. above), my guess is
that the whole thing gets assigned to some internal "variable"
representing the result, and that assignment then counts as a use of the
return value from must_check_overflow() - cc'ing Segher, as he usually
knows these details.
Anyway, we don't need to apply it to the last expression inside ({}), we
can just pass the whole ({}) to must_check_overflow() as in
-#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) ({ \
+#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) must_check_overflow(({ \
typeof(a) __a = (a); \
typeof(b) __b = (b); \
typeof(d) __d = (d); \
(void) (&__a == &__b); \
(void) (&__a == __d); \
__builtin_sub_overflow(__a, __b, __d); \
-})
+}))
and that's even more natural for the fallback cases which would be
#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) \
+ must_check_overflow( \
__builtin_choose_expr(is_signed_type(typeof(a)), \
__signed_sub_overflow(a, b, d), \
- __unsigned_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
+ __unsigned_sub_overflow(a, b, d)))
(in all cases with some whitespace reflowing).
Rasmus
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.
