Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36094-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:52:33 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	"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 03/82] overflow: Introduce add_wrap()
Message-ID: <202401231352.7CE79C5F@keescook>
References: <20240122235208.work.748-kees@kernel.org>
 <20240123002814.1396804-3-keescook@chromium.org>
 <Za-FbFE7slBpwrbq@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Za-FbFE7slBpwrbq@FVFF77S0Q05N>

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:22:52AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:26:38PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Provide a helper that will perform wrapping addition without tripping
> > the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers.
> > 
> > Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
> > Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/overflow.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > index ac088f73e0fd..30779905a77a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> > @@ -124,6 +124,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> >  		check_add_overflow(a, b, &__result);\
> >  	}))
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * add_wrap() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
> > + * @a: first addend
> > + * @b: second addend
> > + *
> > + * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
> > + * tripping any overflow sanitizers that may be enabled.
> > + */
> > +#define add_wrap(a, b)					\
> > +	({						\
> > +		typeof(a) __sum;			\
> > +		if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &__sum))	\
> > +			/* do nothing */;		\
> > +		__sum;					\
> > +	})
> 
> It's really difficult to see the semicolon for the empty statement here; could
> we make that part:
> 
> 		if ((check_add_overflow(a, b, &__sum)) {	\
> 			/* do nothing */			\
> 		}						\
> 
> ... to be a little clearer (and less at risk of breakage in a refactoring)?

Yeah, agreed -- that stands out more clearly.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook