[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <547624C7.3020003@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:06:47 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>, mingo <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] kvm: eventfd: detect integer overflow using check_*_overflow
On 11/26/2014 01:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Good point. Do you think there's an advantage in using GCC's overflow
>> > checker in this case?
> No. However, if your coccinelle script can be changed to verify that
> the type of the expression is unsigned, _that_ would be useful.
I'm pretty sure that this is something GCC will warn you about in the
compilation stage.
> And the "multiplication overflow" may actually be a way to generate
> better code. Possibly. I'm not entirely sure exactly what gcc actually
> does. How many multiplication overflow tests do we actually have,
> though?
Well, there are two straightforward checks in the kcalloc() family. They're
not the issue though. The problem is the *unchecked* *signed* integer overflows
lurking around.
kernel/time/ntp.c:process_adjtimex_modes():
if (txc->modes & ADJ_FREQUENCY) {
time_freq = txc->freq * PPM_SCALE; <=== Undefined overflow
time_freq = min(time_freq, MAXFREQ_SCALED);
time_freq = max(time_freq, -MAXFREQ_SCALED);
/* update pps_freq */
pps_set_freq(time_freq);
}
The multiplication is between signed integers, and it overflows (user triggerable).
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists