linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: resolve COMMAND

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: <20180310142930.0692200b@heffalump.sk2.org>
Date:   Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:29:30 +0100
From:   Stephen Kitt <steve@....org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc:     "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: resolve COMMAND_SIZE at compile time

Hi Bart,

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:47:12 +0000, Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 23:33 +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * SCSI command sizes are as follows, in bytes, for fixed size commands,
> > per
> > + * group: 6, 10, 10, 12, 16, 12, 10, 10. The top three bits of an opcode
> > + * determine its group.
> > + * The size table is encoded into a 32-bit value by subtracting each
> > value
> > + * from 16, resulting in a value of 1715488362
> > + * (6 << 28 + 6 << 24 + 4 << 20 + 0 << 16 + 4 << 12 + 6 << 8 + 6 << 4 +
> > 10).
> > + * Command group 3 is reserved and should never be used.
> > + */
> > +#define COMMAND_SIZE(opcode) \
> > +	(16 - (15 & (1715488362 >> (4 * (((opcode) >> 5) & 7)))))  
> 
> To me this seems hard to read and hard to verify. Could this have been
> written as a combination of ternary expressions, e.g. using a gcc statement
> expression to ensure that opcode is evaluated once?

That’s what I’d tried initially, e.g.

#define COMMAND_SIZE(opcode) ({ \
int index = ((opcode) >> 5) & 7; \
index == 0 ? 6 : (index == 4 ? 16 : index == 3 || index == 5 ? 12 : 10); \
})

But gcc still reckons that results in a VLA, defeating the initial purpose of
the exercise.

Does it help if I make the magic value construction clearer?

#define SCSI_COMMAND_SIZE_TBL (	\
	   (16 -  6)		\
	+ ((16 - 10) <<  4)	\
	+ ((16 - 10) <<  8)	\
	+ ((16 - 12) << 12)	\
	+ ((16 - 16) << 16)	\
	+ ((16 - 12) << 20)	\
	+ ((16 - 10) << 24)	\
	+ ((16 - 10) << 28))

#define COMMAND_SIZE(opcode)						\
  (16 - (15 & (SCSI_COMMAND_SIZE_TBL >> (4 * (((opcode) >> 5) & 7)))))

Regards,

Stephen

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped