Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-34595-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:38:49 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev>,
	Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander@mihalicyn.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/82] ipc: Refactor intentional wrap-around calculation
Message-ID: <202401221713.3FCABC9290@keescook>
References: <20240122235208.work.748-kees@kernel.org>
 <20240123002814.1396804-34-keescook@chromium.org>
 <CAHk-=whS7FSbBoo1gxe+83twO2JeGNsUKMhAcfWymw9auqBvjg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whS7FSbBoo1gxe+83twO2JeGNsUKMhAcfWymw9auqBvjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:07:40PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> First off, none of this has anything to do with -fno-strict-overflow.
> We do that, because without it gcc ends up doing various odd and
> surprising things, the same way it does with strict-aliasing.
> 
> IOW, you should think of -fno-strict-overflow as a hardening thing.
> Any optimization that depends on "this can overflow, so I can do
> anything I want" is just a dangerous optimization for the kernel.
> 
> It matches -fno-strict-aliasing and -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks,
> in other words.
> 
> And I do not understand why you mention it in the first place, since
> this code USES UNSIGNED INTEGER ARITHMETIC, and thus has absolutely
> nothing to do with that no-strict-overflow flag.

I've tried to find the right balance between not enough details and too
much. I guess I got it wrong. I go into more detail in the cover letter:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20240122235208.work.748-kees@kernel.org/

Basically, this isn't about -fno-strict-overflow -- that's just a wrinkle
on the compiler side. I completely agree: we have to keep the "undefined
behavior" junk as far away from the kernel as possible.

This is about disambiguating the intent of C arithmetic so we can be in
the position to instrument the kernel to catch unexpected wrap-arounds.
We can't use C++ tricks with operator overloading and the introduction
of wrapping vs trapping types, so we have to annotate things directly.

And we have sanitizers for signed, unsigned, and pointers. Hence, the
need to adjust these open-coded wrap tests. It's not about removing UB:
-fno-strict-overflow already does that. This is about let us trap
unexpected wrap-around, regardless of type.

> Stop making the world a worse place.

Rude. I'll leave that to ice storms.

-- 
Kees Cook