netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: test_scanf: Fix incorrect use of type

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: <a3396d45-4720-ee30-6493-b19f90c74e54@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 11:55:34 +0200
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>, pmladek@...e.com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
        andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, w@....eu, lkml@....org,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: test_scanf: Fix incorrect use of type_min() with
 unsigned types

On 24/05/2021 17.59, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> sparse was producing warnings of the form:
> 
>  sparse: cast truncates bits from constant value (ffff0001 becomes 1)
> 
> The problem was that value_representable_in_type() compared unsigned types
> against type_min(). But type_min() is only valid for signed types because
> it is calculating the value -type_max() - 1. 

... and casts that to (T), so it does produce 0 as it should. E.g. for
T==unsigned char, we get

#define type_min(T) ((T)((T)-type_max(T)-(T)1))
(T)((T)-255 - (T)1)
(T)(-256)

which is 0 of type unsigned char.

The minimum value of an
> unsigned is obviously 0, so only type_max() need be tested.

That part is true.

But type_min and type_max have been carefully created to produce values
of the appropriate type that actually represent the minimum/maximum
representable in that type, without invoking UB. If this program doesn't
produce the expected results for you, I'd be very interested in knowing
your compiler version:

#include <stdio.h>

#define is_signed_type(type)       (((type)(-1)) < (type)1)
#define __type_half_max(type) ((type)1 << (8*sizeof(type) - 1 -
is_signed_type(type)))
#define type_max(T) ((T)((__type_half_max(T) - 1) + __type_half_max(T)))
#define type_min(T) ((T)((T)-type_max(T)-(T)1))

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
#define p(T, PT, fmt) do {					\
		PT vmin = type_min(T);				\
		PT vmax = type_max(T);				\
		printf("min(%s) = "fmt", max(%s) = "fmt"\n",#T, vmin, #T, vmax); \
	} while (0)

	p(_Bool, int, "%d");
	p(unsigned char, int, "%d");
	p(signed char, int, "%d");
	p(unsigned int, unsigned int, "%u");
	p(unsigned long long, unsigned long long, "%llu");
	p(signed long long, signed long long, "%lld");
	
	return 0;
}



>  lib/test_scanf.c | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c
> index 8d577aec6c28..48ff5747a4da 100644
> --- a/lib/test_scanf.c
> +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c
> @@ -187,8 +187,8 @@ static const unsigned long long numbers[] __initconst = {
>  #define value_representable_in_type(T, val)					 \
>  (is_signed_type(T)								 \
>  	? ((long long)(val) >= type_min(T)) && ((long long)(val) <= type_max(T)) \
> -	: ((unsigned long long)(val) >= type_min(T)) &&				 \
> -	  ((unsigned long long)(val) <= type_max(T)))
> +	: ((unsigned long long)(val) <= type_max(T)))


With or without this, these tests are tautological when T is "long long"
or "unsigned long long". I don't know if that is intended. But it won't,
say, exclude ~0ULL if that is in the numbers[] array from being treated
as fitting in a "long long".

Rasmus