Provide helpers that will perform wrapping addition, subtraction, or
multiplication without tripping the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers. The
first argument is the type under which the wrap-around should happen
with. In other words, these two calls will get very different results:
wrapping_mul(int, 50, 50) == 2500
wrapping_mul(u8, 50, 50) == 196
Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]>
Cc: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/overflow.h | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/overflow_kunit.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---
2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
index 4e741ebb8005..429c4d61a940 100644
--- a/include/linux/overflow.h
+++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
@@ -64,6 +64,24 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
#define check_add_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
+/**
+ * wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: first addend
+ * @b: second addend
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_add(type, a, b) \
+ ({ \
+ type __val; \
+ if (__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val)) { \
+ /* do nothing */ \
+ } \
+ __val; \
+ })
+
/**
* check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
* @a: minuend; value to subtract from
@@ -77,6 +95,24 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
+/**
+ * wrapping_sub() - Intentionally perform a wrapping subtraction
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
+ * @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around subtraction without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_sub(type, a, b) \
+ ({ \
+ type __val; \
+ if (__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &__val)) { \
+ /* do nothing */ \
+ } \
+ __val; \
+ })
+
/**
* check_mul_overflow() - Calculate multiplication with overflow checking
* @a: first factor
@@ -90,6 +126,24 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
#define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
+/**
+ * wrapping_mul() - Intentionally perform a wrapping multiplication
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: first factor
+ * @b: second factor
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around multiplication without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_mul(type, a, b) \
+ ({ \
+ type __val; \
+ if (__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, &__val)) { \
+ /* do nothing */ \
+ } \
+ __val; \
+ })
+
/**
* check_shl_overflow() - Calculate a left-shifted value and check overflow
* @a: Value to be shifted
diff --git a/lib/overflow_kunit.c b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
index c527f6b75789..d3fdb906d3fe 100644
--- a/lib/overflow_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
@@ -258,20 +258,36 @@ DEFINE_TEST_ARRAY(s64) = {
\
_of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(a, b, &_r); \
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _of, of, \
- "expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n", \
+ "expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n", \
a, b, of ? "" : " not", #t); \
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _r, r, \
- "expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
+ "expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
a, b, r, _r, #t); \
/* Check for internal macro side-effects. */ \
_of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(_a_orig++, _b_orig++, &_r); \
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump, \
+ "Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump, \
+ "Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
+ \
+ _r = wrapping_ ## op(t, a, b); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, _r == r, \
+ "expected wrap "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
+ a, b, r, _r, #t); \
+ /* Check for internal macro side-effects. */ \
+ _a_orig = a; \
+ _b_orig = b; \
+ _r = wrapping_ ## op(t, _a_orig++, _b_orig++); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump, \
+ "Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump, \
+ "Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
} while (0)
#define DEFINE_TEST_FUNC_TYPED(n, t, fmt) \
static void do_test_ ## n(struct kunit *test, const struct test_ ## n *p) \
{ \
+ /* check_{add,sub,mul}_overflow() and wrapping_{add,sub,mul} */ \
check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->a, p->b, p->sum, p->s_of); \
check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->b, p->a, p->sum, p->s_of); \
check_one_op(t, fmt, sub, "-", p->a, p->b, p->diff, p->d_of); \
--
2.34.1
On 2/6/24 04:31, Kees Cook wrote:
> Provide helpers that will perform wrapping addition, subtraction, or
> multiplication without tripping the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers. The
> first argument is the type under which the wrap-around should happen
> with. In other words, these two calls will get very different results:
>
> wrapping_mul(int, 50, 50) == 2500
> wrapping_mul(u8, 50, 50) == 196
>
> Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
>
> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]>
> Cc: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> Cc: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/overflow.h | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/overflow_kunit.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> index 4e741ebb8005..429c4d61a940 100644
> --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> @@ -64,6 +64,24 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d) \
> __must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
>
> +/**
> + * wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
> + * @type: type for result of calculation
> + * @a: first addend
> + * @b: second addend
> + *
> + * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
> + * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
> + */
> +#define wrapping_add(type, a, b) \
> + ({ \
> + type __val; \
> + if (__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val)) { \
> + /* do nothing */ \
> + } \
> + __val; \
mmh... now that __builtin_*_overflow() is directly used, I guess
we don't need to _check_ for overflow anymore.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 10:54:06AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/24 04:31, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Provide helpers that will perform wrapping addition, subtraction, or
> > multiplication without tripping the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers. The
> > first argument is the type under which the wrap-around should happen
> > with. In other words, these two calls will get very different results:
> >
> > wrapping_mul(int, 50, 50) == 2500
> > wrapping_mul(u8, 50, 50) == 196
> >
> > Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
> >
> > Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Marco Elver <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/linux/overflow.h | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > lib/overflow_kunit.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > index 4e741ebb8005..429c4d61a940 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > @@ -64,6 +64,24 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> > #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d) \
> > __must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
> > +/**
> > + * wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
> > + * @type: type for result of calculation
> > + * @a: first addend
> > + * @b: second addend
> > + *
> > + * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
> > + * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
> > + */
> > +#define wrapping_add(type, a, b) \
> > + ({ \
> > + type __val; \
> > + if (__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val)) { \
> > + /* do nothing */ \
> > + } \
> > + __val; \
>
> mmh... now that __builtin_*_overflow() is directly used, I guess
> we don't need to _check_ for overflow anymore.
/me slaps his forehead
Yes indeed! I will adjust it.
--
Kees Cook