linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:13:29 +0200
From:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list@...adcom.com,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/38] Fixes related to incorrect usage of unsigned types

On 09/21/2015 03:42 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
>> Semantic patch finds comparisons of types:
>>     unsigned < 0
>>     unsigned >= 0
>> The former is always false, the latter is always true.
>> Such comparisons are useless, so theoretically they could be
>> safely removed, but their presence quite often indicates bugs.
> 
> Or someone has left them in because they don't matter and there's the
> possibility that the type being tested might be or become signed under some
> circumstances.  If the comparison is useless, I'd expect the compiler to just
> discard it - for such cases your patch is pointless.
> 
> If I have, for example:
> 
> 	unsigned x;
> 
> 	if (x == 0 || x > 27)
> 		give_a_range_error();
> 
> I will write this as:
> 
> 	unsigned x;
> 
> 	if (x <= 0 || x > 27)
> 		give_a_range_error();
> 
> because it that gives a way to handle x being changed to signed at some point
> in the future for no cost.  In which case, your changing the <= to an ==
> "because the < part of the case is useless" is arguably wrong.

This is why I have not checked for such cases - I have skipped checks of type
	unsigned <= 0
exactly for the reasons above.

However I have left two other checks as they seems to me more suspicious - they
are always true or false. But as Dmitry and Andrew pointed out Linus have quite
strong opinion against removing range checks in such cases as he finds it
clearer. I think it applies to patches 29-36. I am not sure about patches 26-28,37.

Regards
Andrzej

> 
> David
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@...lic.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
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/