linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] saturate check_*

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:50:24 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] saturate check_*_overflow() output?

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Anyway, we don't need to apply it to the last expression inside ({}), we
> can just pass the whole ({}) to must_check_overflow() as in
> 
> -#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) ({         \
> +#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) must_check_overflow(({             \

Oh! Yes, of course. I was blinded by looking inside the macro and not
wanting to spoil the type magic. Yes, that's perfect. I will spin a
patch...

-- 
Kees Cook