linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/atomic/x86: Silence intentional wrapping addition

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: <202404251018.C12E9F23@keescook>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:19:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/atomic/x86: Silence intentional wrapping
 addition

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> To be clear, I dislike the function annotation because then it applies to
> *everything* within the function, which is overly broad and the intent becomes
> unclear. That makes it painful to refactor the code (since e.g. if we want to
> add another operation to the function which *should not* wrap, that gets
> silenced too).

Yeah, I find that a convincing argument for larger functions, but it
seemed to me that for these 1-line implementations it was okay. But
regardless, yup, no function-level annotation here.

> I'm happy with something that applies to specific types/variables or specific
> operations (which is what these patches do).

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook