linux-kernel - Re: [cocci] [PATCH -mm] -funsigned-char, x86: make struct p4_event

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:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 01:08:53 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, cocci@...ia.fr,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, masahiroy@...nel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [cocci] [PATCH -mm] -funsigned-char, x86: make struct
 p4_event_bind::cntr signed array

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 06:17:04PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 03:50:25AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > The traditional objdump comparison does work, though. It produces a good
> >
> > Another thing that appears to work well is just using Coccinelle
> > scripts. I've had some success just scrolling through the results of:
> >
> >     @@
> >     char c;
> >     expression E;
> >     @@
> >     (
> >     * E > c
> >     |
> >     * E >= c
> >     |
> >     * E < c
> >     |
> >     * E <= c
> >     )
> >
> > That also triggers on explicitly signed chars, and examining those
> > reveals that quite a bit of code in the tree already does do the right
> > thing, which is good.
> >
> > From looking at this and objdump output, it looks like most naked-char
> > usage that isn't for strings is actually already assuming it's unsigned,
> > using it as a byte. I'll continue to churn, and I'm sure I'll miss a few
> > things here and there, but all and all, I don't think this is looking as
> > terrible as I initially feared.
> >
> > I'm CC'ing the Coccinelle people to see if they have any nice ideas on
> > improvements. Specifically, the thing we're trying to identify is:
> >
> >   - Usage of vanilla `char`, without a `signed` or `unsigned` qualifier,
> >     where:
> 
> Try putting
> 
> disable optional_qualifier
> 
> between the initial @@, to avoid the implicit matching of signed and
> unsigned.

Hmm, this doesn't quite work. Here are my rules:

    @disable optional_qualifier@
    char c;
    expression E;
    @@
    (
    * E > c
    |
    * E >= c
    |
    * E < c
    |
    * E <= c
    )
    
    @disable optional_qualifier@
    char c;
    @@
    * c == -1
    
    @disable optional_qualifier@
    char c;
    @@
    * c = -1

This produces, for example:

diff -u -p ./sound/firewire/bebob/bebob_focusrite.c /tmp/nothing/sound/firewire/bebob/bebob_focusrite.c
--- ./sound/firewire/bebob/bebob_focusrite.c
+++ /tmp/nothing/sound/firewire/bebob/bebob_focusrite.c
@@ -192,7 +192,6 @@ saffirepro_both_clk_src_get(struct snd_b

        /* In a case that this driver cannot handle the value of register. */
        value &= SAFFIREPRO_CLOCK_SOURCE_SELECT_MASK;
-       if (value >= SAFFIREPRO_CLOCK_SOURCE_COUNT || map[value] < 0) {
                err = -EIO;
                goto end;
        }

Except map is defined as:

    const signed char *map;

So this would be one of those cases that I had hoped `disable
optional_qualifier` would exclude. (I think internally coccinelle might
be assuming `char` is signed, by the way.)

> >   - It's not being used for characters; and
> >   - It's doing something that assumes it is signed, such as various
> >     types of comparisons or decrements.
> 
> I took a quick look at the article, but I'm not completely sure what you
> are getting at here.  Could you give some examples of what you do and
> don't want to find?
> 
> You don't want the case where c is 'x', for some x?

Something I would want to find is `if (c < 0)`. Something I wouldn't
want to find is `if (c < '9')`. IOW, I'm looking for code that assumes
`c` is signed, and would become incorrect if `c` suddenly became
unsigned. Most things involving actual characters are fine. But most
things involving signed arithmetic or comparisons with numbers isn't
find.

Jason