linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 bitops] bitops: Fix UBSAN undefined behavior warning for rotation right

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:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:51:14 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...lanox.com>
Cc:     jacek.anaszewski@...il.com, pavel@....cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
        idosch@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 bitops] bitops: Fix UBSAN undefined behavior warning
 for rotation right

On Sun,  7 Apr 2019 12:53:25 +0000 Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...lanox.com> wrote:

> The warning is caused by call to rorXX(), if the second parameters of
> this function "shift" is zero. In such case UBSAN reports the warning
> for the next expression: (word << (XX - shift), where XX is
> 64, 32, 16, 8 for respectively ror64, ror32, ror16, ror8.
> Fix adds validation of this parameter - in case it's equal zero, no
> need to rotate, just original "word" is to be returned to caller.
> 
> The UBSAN undefined behavior warning has been reported for call to
> ror32():
> [   11.426543] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in ./include/linux/bitops.h:93:33
> [   11.434045] shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'unsigned int'

hm, do we care?

> ...
>

> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -70,6 +70,9 @@ static inline __u64 rol64(__u64 word, unsigned int shift)
>   */
>  static inline __u64 ror64(__u64 word, unsigned int shift)
>  {
> +	if (!shift)
> +		return word;
> +
>  	return (word >> shift) | (word << (64 - shift));
>  }

Is there any known architecture or compiler for which UL<<64 doesn't
reliably produce zero?  Is there any prospect that this will become a
problem in the future?