linux-hardening - Re: UBSAN: annotation to skip sanitization in variable that will wrap

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: <Zr5B4Du+GTUVTFV9@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:58:56 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, elver@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com,
	ryabinin.a.a@...il.com, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
	asml.silence@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UBSAN: annotation to skip sanitization in variable that will wrap

Hello Justin,

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:05:49PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
> > I am seeing some signed-integer-overflow in percpu reference counters.
> 
> it is brave of you to enable this sanitizer :>)

UBSAN has been somehow useful to pick some problems, so, I try to invest
some time understanding what UBSAN, and see how much it can help when
solving "unexpected" and misterious issues, which is something that
challenges me.

> > Is there a way to annotate the code to tell UBSAN that this overflow is
> > expected and it shouldn't be reported?

> Great question.
> 
> 1) There exists some new-ish macros in overflow.h that perform
> wrapping arithmetic without triggering sanitizer splats -- check out
> the wrapping_* suite of macros.

do they work for atomic? I suppose we also need to have them added to
this_cpu_add(), this_cpu_sub() helpers.

> 2) I have a Clang attribute in the works [1] that would enable you to
> annotate expressions or types that are expected to wrap and will
> therefore silence arithmetic overflow/truncation sanitizers. If you
> think this could help make the kernel better then I'd appreciate a +1
> on that PR so it can get some more review from compiler people! Kees
> and I have some other Clang features in the works that will allow for
> better mitigation strategies for intended overflow in the kernel.

Thanks. I've added a +1 there.