linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: time: Use wrapping

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: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:51:12 +0200
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, 
	John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, 
	bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rust: time: Use wrapping_sub() for Ktime::sub()

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 3:18 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:36:05AM +0200, Alice Ryhl wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:08 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently since Rust code is compiled with "-Coverflow-checks=y", so a
> > > normal substraction may be compiled as an overflow checking and panic
> > > if overflow happens:
> > >
> > >         subq    %rsi, %rdi
> > >         jo      .LBB0_2
> > >         movq    %rdi, %rax
> > >         retq
> > > .LBB0_2:
> > >         pushq   %rax
> > >         leaq    str.0(%rip), %rdi
> > >         leaq    .L__unnamed_1(%rip), %rdx
> > >         movl    $33, %esi
> > >         callq   *core::panicking::panic::h59297120e85ea178@...PCREL(%rip)
> > >
> > > although overflow detection is nice to have, however this makes
> > > `Ktime::sub()` behave differently than `ktime_sub()`, moreover it's not
> > > clear that the overflow checking is helpful, since for example, the
> > > current binder usage[1] doesn't have the checking.
> >
> > I don't think this is a good idea at all. Any code that triggers an
> > overflow in Ktime::sub is wrong, and anyone who enables
> > CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS does so because they want such bugs to be
> > caught. You may have been able to find one example of a subtraction
> > that doesn't have a risk of overflow, but overflow bugs really do
>
> The point is you won't panic the kernel because of an overflow. I
> agree that overflow is something we want to catch, but currently
> ktime_t doesn't panic if overflow happens.

What the CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS option does is enable panics on
overflow. So I don't understand how "it panics on overflow" is an
argument for removing the overflow check. That's what you asked for!
One could perhaps argue about whether CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS is a
good idea (I think it is), but that is orthogonal. When
CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS is enabled, you should respect the flag.

Alice