linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/atomic/x86: Silence intentional wrapping addition

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: <202404241621.8286B8A@keescook>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:30:50 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/atomic/x86: Silence intentional wrapping
 addition

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 01:05:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:54:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:45:07PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:41:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:17:34PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > @@ -82,7 +83,7 @@ static __always_inline bool arch_atomic_add_negative(int i, atomic_t *v)
> > > > >  
> > > > >  static __always_inline int arch_atomic_add_return(int i, atomic_t *v)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	return i + xadd(&v->counter, i);
> > > > > +	return wrapping_add(int, i, xadd(&v->counter, i));
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  #define arch_atomic_add_return arch_atomic_add_return
> > > > 
> > > > this is going to get old *real* quick :-/
> > > > 
> > > > This must be the ugliest possible way to annotate all this, and then
> > > > litter the kernel with all this... urgh.
> > > 
> > > I'm expecting to have explicit wrapping type annotations soon[1], but for
> > > the atomics, it's kind of a wash on how intrusive the annotations get. I
> > > had originally wanted to mark the function (as I did in other cases)
> > > rather than using the helper, but Mark preferred it this way. I'm happy
> > > to do whatever! :)
> > > 
> > > -Kees
> > > 
> > > [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86618
> > 
> > This is arse-about-face. Signed stuff wraps per -fno-strict-overflow.
> > We've been writing code for years under that assumption.
> > 
> > You want to mark the non-wrapping case.
> 
> That is, anything that actively warns about signed overflow when build
> with -fno-strict-overflow is a bug. If you want this warning you have to
> explicitly mark things.

This is confusing UB with "overflow detection". We're doing the latter.

> Signed overflow is not UB, is not a bug.
> 
> Now, it might be unexpected in some places, but fundamentally we run on
> 2s complement and expect 2s complement. If you want more, mark it so.

Regular C never provided us with enough choice in types to be able to
select the overflow resolution strategy. :( So we're stuck mixing
expectations into our types. (One early defense you were involved in
touched on this too: refcount_t uses a saturating overflow strategy, as
that works best for how it gets used.)

Regardless, yes, someone intent on wrapping gets their expected 2s
complement results, but in the cases were a few values started collecting
in some dark corner of protocol handling, having a calculation wrap around
is at best a behavioral bug and at worst a total system compromise.
Wrapping is the uncommon case here, so we mark those.

-- 
Kees Cook