Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJ9Uw9pDOYfBH8iXTVqiQXgNrEqzpk7a5mOCrH0G3CoyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGXu5jL9hqQGe672CmvFwqNbtTr=qu7WRwHuS4Vy7o5sX_UTgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803072212160.2814@hadrien> <20180308025812.GA9082@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803080722300.3754@hadrien> <20180308230512.GD29073@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803131818550.3117@hadrien> <20180313183220.GA21538@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAGXu5jKLaY2vzeFNaEhZOXbMgDXp4nF4=BnGCFfHFRwL6LXNHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180429203023.GA11891@bombadil.infradead.org> <CAGXu5j+N9tt4rxaUMxoZnE-ziqU_yu-jkt-cBZ=R8wmYq6XBTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180430201607.GA7041@bombadil.infradead.org> <4ad99a55-9c93-5ea1-5954-3cb6e5ba7df9@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <CAGXu5j+tYhQOfVMkZdPzW5CX103LHpm8SYSN51VFLufn0Z0y6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4e25ff5b-f8fc-7012-83c2-b56e6928e8bc@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <CAGXu5jJ9Uw9pDOYfBH8iXTVqiQXgNrEqzpk7a5mOCrH0G3CoyA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 17:40:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ1dA4MA-MuzGXdF+sGMZN17BMf-WOod=hFgqt=e7zaKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-01 19:00, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Rasmus Villemoes
>>> <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> gcc 5.1+ (I think) have the __builtin_OP_overflow checks that should
>>>> generate reasonable code. Too bad there's no completely generic
>>>> check_all_ops_in_this_expression(a+b*c+d/e, or_jump_here). Though it's
>>>> hard to define what they should be checked against - probably would
>>>> require all subexpressions (including the variables themselves) to have
>>>> the same type.
>>>>
>>>> plug: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/19/358
>>>
>>> That's a very nice series. Why did it never get taken?
>>
>> Well, nobody seemed particularly interested, and then
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/28/215 happened... but he did later seem
>> to admit that it could be useful for the multiplication checking, and
>> that "the gcc interface for multiplication overflow is fine".
>
> Oh, excellent. Thank you for that pointer! That conversation covered a
> lot of ground. I need to think a little more about how to apply the
> thoughts there with the kmalloc() needs and the GPU driver needs...
>
>> I still think even for unsigned types overflow checking can be subtle. E.g.
>>
>> u32 somevar;
>>
>> if (somevar + sizeof(foo) < somevar)
>>   return -EOVERFLOW;
>> somevar += sizeof(this);
>>
>> is broken, because the LHS is promoted to unsigned long/size_t, then so
>> is the RHS for the comparison, and the comparison is thus always false
>> (on 64bit). It gets worse if the two types are more "opaque", and in any
>> case it's not always easy to verify at a glance that the types are the
>> same, or at least that the expression of the widest type is on the RHS.
>
> That's an excellent example, yes. (And likely worth including in the
> commit log somewhere.)
>
>>
>>> It seems to do the right things quite correctly.
>>
>> Yes, I wouldn't suggest it without the test module verifying corner
>> cases, and checking it has the same semantics whether used with old or
>> new gcc.
>>
>> Would you shepherd it through if I updated the patches and resent?
>
> Yes, though we may need reworking if we actually want to do the
> try/catch style (since that was talked about with GPU stuff too...)
>
> Either way, yes, a refresh would be lovely! :)

Whatever the case, I think we need to clean up all the kmalloc() math
anyway. As mentioned earlier, there are a handful of more complex
cases, but the vast majority are just A * B. I've put up a series here
now, and I'll send it out soon. I want to think more about 3-factor
products, addition, etc:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=kspp/kmalloc/2-factor-products

The commit logs need more details (i.e. about making constants the
second argument for optimal compiler results, etc), but there's a
Coccinelle-generated first pass.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security