[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <992f0e89-3d24-4bc1-8850-e1314f031413@embeddedor.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:00:53 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] overflow: Adjust check_*_overflow() kern-doc to
reflect results
On 2/5/24 03:12, Kees Cook wrote:
> The check_*_overflow() helpers will return results with potentially
> wrapped-around values. These values have always been checked by the
> selftests, so avoid the confusing language in the kern-doc. The idea of
> "safe for use" was relative to the expectation of whether or not the
> caller wants a wrapped value -- the calculation itself will always follow
> arithmetic wrapping rules.
>
> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Better to be concise and direct. :)
Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Thanks!
--
Gustavo
> ---
> include/linux/overflow.h | 18 ++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> index 7b5cf4a5cd19..4e741ebb8005 100644
> --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> @@ -57,11 +57,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> * @b: second addend
> * @d: pointer to store sum
> *
> - * Returns 0 on success.
> + * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
> *
> - * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, but is not considered
> - * "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates that the
> - * sum has overflowed or been truncated.
> + * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, which may wrap-around.
> */
> #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d) \
> __must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
> @@ -72,11 +70,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> * @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
> * @d: pointer to store difference
> *
> - * Returns 0 on success.
> + * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
> *
> - * *@d holds the results of the attempted subtraction, but is not considered
> - * "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates that the
> - * difference has underflowed or been truncated.
> + * *@d holds the results of the attempted subtraction, which may wrap-around.
> */
> #define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) \
> __must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
> @@ -87,11 +83,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
> * @b: second factor
> * @d: pointer to store product
> *
> - * Returns 0 on success.
> + * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
> *
> - * *@d holds the results of the attempted multiplication, but is not
> - * considered "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates
> - * that the product has overflowed or been truncated.
> + * *@d holds the results of the attempted multiplication, which may wrap-around.
> */
> #define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d) \
> __must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
Powered by blists - more mailing lists