linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/38] minmax: Add in

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: <20230710161341.c8d6a8b2cbf57013bf6e0140@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 16:13:41 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/38] minmax: Add in_range() macro

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 21:43:02 +0100 "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org> wrote:

> Determine if a value lies within a range more efficiently (subtraction +
> comparison vs two comparisons and an AND).  It also has useful (under
> some circumstances) behaviour if the range exceeds the maximum value of
> the type.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
> --- a/include/linux/minmax.h
> +++ b/include/linux/minmax.h
> @@ -158,6 +158,32 @@
>   */
>  #define clamp_val(val, lo, hi) clamp_t(typeof(val), val, lo, hi)
>  
> +static inline bool in_range64(u64 val, u64 start, u64 len)
> +{
> +	return (val - start) < len;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool in_range32(u32 val, u32 start, u32 len)
> +{
> +	return (val - start) < len;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * in_range - Determine if a value lies within a range.
> + * @val: Value to test.
> + * @start: First value in range.
> + * @len: Number of values in range.
> + *
> + * This is more efficient than "if (start <= val && val < (start + len))".
> + * It also gives a different answer if @start + @len overflows the size of
> + * the type by a sufficient amount to encompass @val.  Decide for yourself
> + * which behaviour you want, or prove that start + len never overflow.
> + * Do not blindly replace one form with the other.
> + */
> +#define in_range(val, start, len)					\
> +	sizeof(start) <= sizeof(u32) ? in_range32(val, start, len) :	\
> +		in_range64(val, start, len)

There's nothing here to prevent callers from passing a mixture of
32-bit and 64-bit values, possibly resulting in truncation of `val' or
`len'.

Obviously caller is being dumb, but I think it's cost-free to check all
three of the arguments for 64-bitness?

Or do a min()/max()-style check for consistently typed arguments?