netdev - 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: <20240425091752.GA21980@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:17:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 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 Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 04:20:20PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

> > This is arse-about-face. Signed stuff wraps per -fno-strict-overflow.
> > We've been writing code for years under that assumption.
> 
> Right, which is why this is going to take time to roll out. :) What we
> were really doing with -fno-strict-overflow was getting rid of undefined
> behavior. That was really really horrible; we don't need the compiler
> hallucinating.

Right, but that then got us well defined semantics for signed overflow.

> > You want to mark the non-wrapping case.
> 
> What we want is lack of ambiguity. Having done these kinds of things in
> the kernel for a while now, I have strong evidence that we get much better
> results with the "fail safe" approach, but start by making it non-fatal.
> That way we get full coverage, but we don't melt the world for anyone
> that doesn't want it, and we can shake things out over a few years. For
> example, it has worked well for CONFIG_FORTIFY, CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS,
> KCFI, etc.

The non-fatal argument doesn't have bearing on the mark warp or mark
non-wrap argument though.

> The riskier condition is having something wrap when it wasn't expected
> (e.g. allocations, pointer offsets, etc), so we start by defining our
> regular types as non-wrapping, and annotate the wrapping types (or
> specific calculations or functions).

But but most of those you mention are unsigned. Are you saying you're
making all unsigned variables non-wrap by default too? That's bloody
insane.

> For signed types in particular, wrapping is overwhelmingly the
> uncommon case, so from a purely "how much annotations is needed"
> perspective, marking wrapping is also easiest. Yes, there are cases of
> expected wrapping, but we'll track them all down and get them marked
> unambiguously. 

But I am confused now, because above you seem to imply you're making
unsigned non-wrap too, and there wrapping is *far* more common, and I
must say I hate this wrapping_add() thing with a passion.

> One thing on the short list is atomics, so here we are. :)

Well, there are wrapping and non-wrapping users of atomic. If only C had
generics etc.. (and yeah, _Generic doesn't really count).