linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202402070255.36699AE147@keescook>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 03:04:14 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 01:45:28AM +0000, Justin Stitt wrote:
> I wouldn't mind also seeing a test_ubsan_div_overflow test case here.
> 
> It has some quirky behavior and it'd be nice to test that the sanitizers
> properly capture it.
> 
> Check out this Godbolt: https://godbolt.org/z/qG5f1j6n1
> 
> tl;dr: with -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow division (/) and
> remainder (%) operators still instrument arithmetic even with
> -fno-strict-overflow on.
> 
> This makes sense as division by 0 and INT_MIN/-1 are UBs that are not
> influenced by -fno-strict-overflow.

There is actually already a test_ubsan_divrem_overflow, but because the
failure modes result in a trap even without the sanitizer, it's disabled
in the test. For testing a crashing mode, it might be interesting to add
it to LKDTM, which is the crash tester...

> 
> Really though, the patch is fine and the above test case is optional and
> can be shipped later -- as such:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook