linux-hardening - RE: [PATCH] compiler.h: Explain how __is

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]

Message-ID: <af0eff12e6bc41039614add550406c11@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:32:16 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Kees Cook' <keescook@...omium.org>, Rasmus Villemoes
	<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
CC: "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, Miguel Ojeda
	<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Martin Uecker
	<Martin.Uecker@....uni-goettingen.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Miguel Ojeda
	<ojeda@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] compiler.h: Explain how __is_constexpr() works

From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 01 March 2024 04:45
> To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
> 
> The __is_constexpr() macro is dark magic. Shed some light on it with
> a comment to explain how and why it works.

All the 8s don't help...

I don't think you need that much explanation.

Perhaps just saying that the type of ?: depends on the types
of the values and is independent of the condition.
The type of (0 ? (void *)p : (foo *)q) is normally 'void *'
(so that both values can be assigned to it).
But if 'p' is 'an integer constant expression with value 0'
then (void *)p is NULL and the type is 'foo *'.

The type can then be checked to find out it 'p' is constant 0.
A non-zero constant 'p' can be multiples by 0.

I need to replace the definition with (the more portable):
#define __if_constexpr(cond, if_const, if_not_const) \
	_Generic(0 ? (void *)((long)(cond) * 0) : (char *)0, \
		char *: (if_const), \
		void *: (if_not_const))
which is arguably less cryptic.

#define __is_constexpr(cond) __if_constexpr(cond, 1, 0)

So that I can write:
#define is_non_neg_const(x) (__if_constexpr(x, x , -1) >= 0)
and avoid the compiler bleating about some comparisons
in unreachable code.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)