linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree

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: <CALCETrVWSjqBJyEC4k6qAfa2PcoKq6LWR8HH2WyuMBU+98pJsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:20:13 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the tip tree

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 07/18/2014 01:08 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> i isn't an index in to the syms array at all.  This code is completely
>> wrong.  See the patch I sent in reply to Stephen's original email.
>>
>> But, to your earlier point, presumably this could warn:
>>
>> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
>>   if (array[i] > array[5] + 1)
>>     fail();
>>
>> I think that's absurd.  There's nothing wrong with that code.  A given
>> test should have to be always true or always false on *all* loop
>> iterations to be flagged, I think.
>>
>
> No, the issue is that gcc is telling you that the code will do the wrong
> thing in this case.  Yes, only for one iteration, but still.
>
> The reason this is a concern is that: (x > x + n) and its variants is
> often used to mean (x > INT_MAX - n) without the type knowledge, but
> that is actually invalid standard C because signed types are not
> guaranteed to wrap.

Right, but the constant in this case is *much* less than INT_MAX.
Anyway, this is moot.

I do wonder whether the kind of people who build hardened kernels
should enable -fwrapv, though.

--Andy

>
>         -hpa
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/