Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142242-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240411230801.1504496-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20240411230801.1504496-3-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240411230801.1504496-3-boqun.feng@gmail.com>
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:36:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH5fLgg0CkZO9KF58boui6Y5ajpXHuGh0OxyNru2aEG5pNObwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: time: Use wrapping_sub() for Ktime::sub()
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>, 
	John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>, 
	bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:08=E2=80=AFAM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> Currently since Rust code is compiled with "-Coverflow-checks=3Dy", so a
> normal substraction may be compiled as an overflow checking and panic
> if overflow happens:
>
>         subq    %rsi, %rdi
>         jo      .LBB0_2
>         movq    %rdi, %rax
>         retq
> .LBB0_2:
>         pushq   %rax
>         leaq    str.0(%rip), %rdi
>         leaq    .L__unnamed_1(%rip), %rdx
>         movl    $33, %esi
>         callq   *core::panicking::panic::h59297120e85ea178@GOTPCREL(%rip)
>
> although overflow detection is nice to have, however this makes
> `Ktime::sub()` behave differently than `ktime_sub()`, moreover it's not
> clear that the overflow checking is helpful, since for example, the
> current binder usage[1] doesn't have the checking.

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Any code that triggers an
overflow in Ktime::sub is wrong, and anyone who enables
CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS does so because they want such bugs to be
caught. You may have been able to find one example of a subtraction
that doesn't have a risk of overflow, but overflow bugs really do
happen in the real world. I have seen real examples of bugs in Rust
code, where overflow checks were the reason the bug was not a security
vulnerability.

> Therefore make `Ktime::sub()` have the same semantics as `ktime_sub()`:
> overflow behaves like 2s-complement wrapping sub.

From Miguel's reply, it sounds like 2s-complement wrapping is not even
the semantics of ktime_sub. The semantics are just UB.

Alice