linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct

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: <202405021552.5C000EA@keescook>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 15:55:36 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
 arithmetic

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:18:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 01:21:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:40:58PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > > > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > > > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
> > > 
> > > So personally I detest struct_size() because I can never remember wtf it
> > > does, whereas the code it replaces is simple and straight forward :/
> > 
> > Sure, new APIs can involved a learning curve. If we can all handle
> > container_of(), we can deal with struct_size(). :)
> 
> containre_of() is actually *much* shorter than typing it all out. Which
> is a benefit.
> 
> struct_size() not so much. That's just obfuscation for obfuscation's
> sake.

It's really not -- it's making sure that the calculation is semantically
sane: all the right things are being used for the struct size calculation
and things can't "drift", if types change, flex array changes, etc. It's
both a code robustness improvement and a wrap-around stopping improvement.

-- 
Kees Cook