linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.14 17/89] futex: Prevent overflow by strengthen input validation

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: <20180125153045.GL2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:30:45 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Li Jinyue <lijinyue@...wei.com>, dvhart@...radead.org,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 17/89] futex: Prevent overflow by strengthen input
 validation

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:21:51PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > The same reason it was applied upstream, it fixes a reported
> > issue.
> > 
> > Does that mean that all UBSAN overflow error reports are not valid
> > because of how we build the kernel?
> 
> IMO yes, because with the option, signed overflow is not undefined.
> 
> In the long term, it would be nice to get rid of *all* signed integer
> overflows and kill the compiler option from Makefile. Therefore the
> fixes are indeed very valid in upstream.

I actually think the option is unconditionally good. Undefined behaviour
in a language is bad. Sadly C has lots of it, but any reduction we can
have we must take.