linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Implement __ubsan_handle_alignment

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: <20210112220634.GA1377517@ubuntu-m3-large-x86>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:06:34 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Implement __ubsan_handle_alignment_assumption

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:53:30PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:37 PM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > if real_ptr is an unsigned long, do we want to use `__ffs(real_ptr) +
> > > 1` here rather than ffs which takes an int?  It seems the kernel is
> > > missing a definition of ffsl. :(
> >
> > Why the + 1? I think if we use __ffs (which it seems like we should), I
> > think that needs to become
> 
> This came up recently in an internal code review; ffs and __ffs differ
> in output by one.  See also the definition of ffs for alpha in
> arch/alpha/include/asm/bitops.h.

Interesting, thanks for bringing it up! Looks like ffs returns 1-32 and
__ffs returns 0-31. I think that we want __ffs here because we are
shifting (1UL << 32 overflows on 32-bit architectures) and the code in
LLVM appears to agree. LeastSignificantSetBitIndex evaluates to
__builtin_ctzl, which is the asm-generic implementation of __ffs.

Cheers,
NAthan