Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-35396-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240122235208.work.748-kees@kernel.org> <20240123002814.1396804-27-keescook@chromium.org>
 <CAMuHMdWa9tXQRHkkX-W+5n8kuCvEFZdsfStPtYGA0MZpTGX79Q@mail.gmail.com> <c915b476-784c-4d64-8063-f18837350568@helsinkinet.fi>
In-Reply-To: <c915b476-784c-4d64-8063-f18837350568@helsinkinet.fi>
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:42:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVhPV0-BCe-90oh5tpwt1S8bOQsyRE+vemVGORSfS-gBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/82] m68k: Refactor intentional wrap-around calculation
To: Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, 
	Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, 
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>, Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>, 
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Eero,

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:30=E2=80=AFPM Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi> =
wrote:
> On 23.1.2024 10.13, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 1:35=E2=80=AFAM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.or=
g> wrote:
> >> In an effort to separate intentional arithmetic wrap-around from
> >> unexpected wrap-around, we need to refactor places that depend on this
> >> kind of math. One of the most common code patterns of this is:
> >>
> >>          VAR + value < VAR
> >>
> >> Notably, this is considered "undefined behavior" for signed and pointe=
r
> >> types, which the kernel works around by using the -fno-strict-overflow
> >> option in the build[1] (which used to just be -fwrapv). Regardless, we
> >> want to get the kernel source to the position where we can meaningfull=
y
> >> instrument arithmetic wrap-around conditions and catch them when they
> >> are unexpected, regardless of whether they are signed[2], unsigned[3],
> >> or pointer[4] types.
> >>
> >> Refactor open-coded unsigned wrap-around addition test to use
> >> check_add_overflow(), retaining the result for later usage (which remo=
ves
> >> the redundant open-coded addition). This paves the way to enabling the
> >> unsigned wrap-around sanitizer[2] in the future.
> >>
> >> Link: https://git.kernel.org/linus/68df3755e383e6fecf2354a67b08f92f185=
36594 [1]
> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/26 [2]
> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/27 [3]
> >> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/344 [4]
> >> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> >> Cc: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>
> >> Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>
> >> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> >> Cc: linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> >> --- a/arch/m68k/kernel/sys_m68k.c
> >> +++ b/arch/m68k/kernel/sys_m68k.c
> >> @@ -391,10 +391,11 @@ sys_cacheflush (unsigned long addr, int scope, i=
nt cache, unsigned long len)
> >>
> >>                  mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
> >>          } else {
> >> +               unsigned long sum;
> >
> > "sum" sounds like this is a dummy variable, to please the third
> > parameter of check_add_overflow()...
> >
> >>                  struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >>
> >>                  /* Check for overflow.  */
> >
> > I agree with Liam: please drop the comment.
> >
> >> -               if (addr + len < addr)
> >> +               if (check_add_overflow(addr, len, &sum))
> >>                          goto out;
> >>
> >>                  /*
> >> @@ -403,7 +404,7 @@ sys_cacheflush (unsigned long addr, int scope, int=
 cache, unsigned long len)
> >>                   */
> >>                  mmap_read_lock(current->mm);
> >>                  vma =3D vma_lookup(current->mm, addr);
> >> -               if (!vma || addr + len > vma->vm_end)
> >> +               if (!vma || sum > vma->vm_end)
> >
> > ... Oh, it is actually used. What about renaming it to "end" instead?
>
> IMHO this is more descriptive:
> +               if (check_add_overflow(addr, len, &sum))
>
> than this:
> +               if (check_add_overflow(addr, len, &end))
>
> "sum" is IMHO quite obviously sum of the preceding args, whereas I do
> not know what "end" would be.

"end" is the end of the block of size "len" pointed to by "addr".

IMHO "if (sum > vma->vm_end)" is less descriptive...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--=20
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k=
org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. Bu=
t
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like t=
hat.
                                -- Linus Torvalds