linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v3] ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 04:51:33 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 12:29:21PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 10:37, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > In order to mitigate unexpected signed wrap-around[1], bring back the
> > signed integer overflow sanitizer. It was removed in commit 6aaa31aeb9cf
> > ("ubsan: remove overflow checks") because it was effectively a no-op
> > when combined with -fno-strict-overflow (which correctly changes signed
> > overflow from being "undefined" to being explicitly "wrap around").
> >
> > Compilers are adjusting their sanitizers to trap wrap-around and to
> > detecting common code patterns that should not be instrumented
> > (e.g. "var + offset < var"). Prepare for this and explicitly rename
> > the option from "OVERFLOW" to "WRAP".
> >
> > To annotate intentional wrap-around arithmetic, the add/sub/mul_wrap()
> > helpers can be used for individual statements. At the function level,
> > the __signed_wrap attribute can be used to mark an entire function as
> > expecting its signed arithmetic to wrap around. For a single object file
> > the Makefile can use "UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED_target.o := n" to mark it as
> > wrapping, and for an entire directory, "UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED := n" can be
> > used.
> >
> > Additionally keep these disabled under CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST for now.
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/26 [1]
> > Cc: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>

Thanks!

> And just to double check, you don't think we need 'depends on EXPERT'
> (or DEBUG_KERNEL) to keep the noise down initially?

Not for signed, no. It's almost a no-op like this. Once Clang and GCC
support the wrap version (which will likely require changing the
command line argument), we can re-evaluate. So far in my testing, I've
not been able to trip it. I'm planning to get a local syzbot running
with the wrap sanitizer later this week to see how noisy it gets (if at
all).

-- 
Kees Cook