Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-180717-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 09:45:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC] Mitigating unexpected arithmetic overflow
Message-ID: <20240516074519.GB22557@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <202404291502.612E0A10@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wi5YPwWA8f5RAf_Hi8iL0NhGJeL6MN6UFWwRMY8L6UDvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202405081144.D5FCC44A@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wjeiGb1UxCy6Q8aif50C=wWDX9Pgp+WbZYrO72+B1f_QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202405081354.B0A8194B3C@keescook>
 <CAHk-=wgoE5EkH+sQwi4KhRhCZizUxwZAnC=+9RbZcw7g6016LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240515073636.GY40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAFhGd8qKObvqbLJWvkG+Wfuy0gpWiTsSmFrBO-NzC-akB6bhzA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAFhGd8qKObvqbLJWvkG+Wfuy0gpWiTsSmFrBO-NzC-akB6bhzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:12:20AM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:47:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > For example, the most common case of overflow we've ever had has very
> > > much been array indexing. Now, sometimes that has actually been actual
> > > undefined behavior, because it's been overflow in signed variables,
> > > and those are "easy" to find in the sense that you just say "no, can't
> > > do that". UBSAN finds them, and that's good.
> >
> > We build with -fno-strict-overflow, which implies -fwrapv, which removes
> > the UB from signed overflow by mandating 2s complement.
> 
> FWIW,
> 
> Clang-19 allows -fwrapv and -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow to work
> together [1]
> 
> And the sanitizer was re-introduced with Commit 557f8c582a9ba8ab
> ("ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer").

Urgh, that's the exact kind of drugs we don't need. I detest that
commit. Both unsigned and signed have well defined semantics.

And since (with -fwrapv) there is no UB, UBSAN is not the right place.

> > With the exception of an UBSAN bug prior to GCC-8, UBSAN will not, and
> > should not, warn about signed overflow when using either of these flags.
> 
> [1]: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#sanitizers

That link doesn't seem to work for me...