Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 13:12:30 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>,
        thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com, jani.nikula@intel.com,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk,
        airlied@linux.ie, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        matthew.auld@intel.com, mchehab@kernel.org, nirmoy.das@intel.com,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mauro.chehab@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] overflow: Move and add few utility macros into
 overflow
Message-ID: <202208221301.366A33DACA@keescook>
References: <20220816093525.184940-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>
 <20220816093525.184940-2-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>
 <Yv10sQADwdZrIV42@alfio.lan>
 <202208171657.63AE7AC@keescook>
 <f3370fb1-5318-c662-294b-2c7fe693efd6@intel.com>
 <52c09fde-f788-4c2b-efdc-d1783dbc0f6c@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <52c09fde-f788-4c2b-efdc-d1783dbc0f6c@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 04:32:10AM +0900, Gwan-gyeong Mun wrote:
> On 8/22/22 11:05 PM, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> > On 18.08.2022 02:12, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 01:07:29AM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +#define safe_conversion(ptr, value) ({ \
> > > > > +??? typeof(value) __v = (value); \
> > > > > +??? typeof(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \
> > > > > +??? overflows_type(__v, *__ptr) ? 0 : ((*__ptr =
> > > > > (typeof(*__ptr))__v), 1); \
> > > > > +})
> > > 
> > > I try to avoid "safe" as an adjective for interface names, since it
> > > doesn't really answer "safe from what?" This looks more like "assign, but
> > > zero when out of bounds". And it can be built from existing macros here:
> > > 
> > > ????if (check_add_overflow(0, value, ptr))
> > > ??????? *ptr = 0;
> > > 
> > > I actually want to push back on this a bit, because there can still be
> > > logic bugs built around this kind of primitive. Shouldn't out-of-bounds
> > > assignments be seen as a direct failure? I would think this would be
> > > sufficient:
> > > 
> > > #define check_assign(value, ptr)??? check_add_overflow(0, value, ptr)
> > > 
> > > And callers would do:
> > > 
> > > ????if (check_assign(value, &var))
> > > ??????? return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> Yes, I also like check_assign() you suggested more than safe_conversion.
> As shown below, it would be more readable to return true when assign
> succeeds and false when it fails. What do you think?

No, this inverts the style of all the other check_*() functions, so it
should remain "non-zero is failure".

> /**
>  * check_assign - perform a type conversion (cast) of an source value into
>  * a new variable, checking that the destination is large enough to hold the
>  * source value.
>  *
>  * @value: Source value
>  * @ptr: Destination pointer address, If the pointer type is not used, a
> warning message is output during build.
>  *
>  * Returns:
>  * If the value would overflow the destination, it returns false. If not
> return true.
>  */
> #define check_assign(value, ptr) __must_check_overflow(({	\
> 	typecheck_pointer(ptr); 		\
> 	!__builtin_add_overflow(0, value, ptr);	\
> }))

Please don't use the __builtin*s, instead stick to the check_* family,
as they correctly wrap the builtins and perform type checking, etc. As
mentioned, check_assign() should just be:

#define check_assign(value, ptr)??? check_add_overflow(0, value, ptr)

I don't think any of the other code is needed? What's the use-case for
the other stuff? i.e. Why does anything need overflows_type()?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook