linux-kernel - Re: [patch cr 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR

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: <20120130125812.0075dd04@dt>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:58:12 -0700
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [patch cr 2/4] [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall v7

Just a couple of silly little things that came to mind while I was looking
at the code...

> +/*
> + * We don't expose real in-memory order of objects for security
> + * reasons, still the comparision results should be suitable for
> + * sorting. Thus, we obfuscate kernel pointers values (using random
> + * cookies obtaned at early boot stage) and compare the production
> + * instead.
> + */
> +static unsigned long cookies[KCMP_TYPES][2] __read_mostly;
> +
> +static long kptr_obfuscate(long v, int type)
> +{
> +	return (v ^ cookies[type][0]) * cookies[type][1];
> +}

I don't understand the purpose of this at all.  Obfuscation will cause a
random shuffling in the ordering of the pointers - it's intended to - so
how is the result "suitable for sorting"?  More to the point, is there
ever a time when a user of this will care about some contrived ordering
value?  It seems like equality is all that really matters.

> +
> +/*
> + * 0 - equal
> + * 1 - less than
> + * 2 - greater than
> + * 3 - not equal but ordering unavailable (reserved for future)
> + */
> +static int kcmp_ptr(void *v1, void *v2, enum kcmp_type type)
> +{
> +	long ret;
> +
> +	ret = kptr_obfuscate((long)v1, type) - kptr_obfuscate((long)v2, type);
> +
> +	return (ret < 0) | ((ret > 0) << 1);
> +}

That's a cute trick, but do we know that every compiler that will ever see
this code will use 1 for a true integer comparison?  Simply spelling it
out with an if statement might be more robust, just as efficient, and, at
the same time, easier for others to understand.

Thanks,

jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/