linux-stable/include/linux/overflow.h

444 lines
14 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT */
#ifndef __LINUX_OVERFLOW_H
#define __LINUX_OVERFLOW_H
#include <linux/compiler.h>
#include <linux/limits.h>
#include <linux/const.h>
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/*
* We need to compute the minimum and maximum values representable in a given
* type. These macros may also be useful elsewhere. It would seem more obvious
* to do something like:
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
*
* #define type_min(T) (T)(is_signed_type(T) ? (T)1 << (8*sizeof(T)-1) : 0)
* #define type_max(T) (T)(is_signed_type(T) ? ((T)1 << (8*sizeof(T)-1)) - 1 : ~(T)0)
*
* Unfortunately, the middle expressions, strictly speaking, have
* undefined behaviour, and at least some versions of gcc warn about
* the type_max expression (but not if -fsanitize=undefined is in
* effect; in that case, the warning is deferred to runtime...).
*
* The slightly excessive casting in type_min is to make sure the
* macros also produce sensible values for the exotic type _Bool. [The
* overflow checkers only almost work for _Bool, but that's
* a-feature-not-a-bug, since people shouldn't be doing arithmetic on
* _Bools. Besides, the gcc builtins don't allow _Bool* as third
* argument.]
*
* Idea stolen from
* https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-misc/2007/02/05/0000.html -
* credit to Christian Biere.
*/
#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_max(t) __type_max(typeof(t))
#define __type_min(T) ((T)((T)-type_max(T)-(T)1))
#define type_min(t) __type_min(typeof(t))
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
overflow: Fix -Wtype-limits compilation warnings Attempt to use check_shl_overflow() with inputs of unsigned type produces the following compilation warnings. drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c: In function _set_user_rq_size_: ./include/linux/overflow.h:230:6: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits] _s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \ ^~ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:26: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:36: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift,&rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fixes: 0c66847793d1 ("overflow.h: Add arithmetic shift helper") Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
2019-03-17 10:11:14 +00:00
/*
* Avoids triggering -Wtype-limits compilation warning,
* while using unsigned data types to check a < 0.
*/
#define is_non_negative(a) ((a) > 0 || (a) == 0)
#define is_negative(a) (!(is_non_negative(a)))
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/*
* Allows for effectively applying __must_check to a macro so we can have
* both the type-agnostic benefits of the macros while also being able to
* enforce that the return value is, in fact, checked.
*/
static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
{
return unlikely(overflow);
}
/**
* check_add_overflow() - Calculate addition with overflow checking
* @a: first addend
* @b: second addend
* @d: pointer to store sum
*
* Returns true on wrap-around, false otherwise.
*
* *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, regardless of whether
* wrap-around occurred.
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
*/
#define check_add_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/**
* wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
* @type: type for result of calculation
* @a: first addend
* @b: second addend
*
* Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
* tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
*/
#define wrapping_add(type, a, b) \
({ \
type __val; \
__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val); \
__val; \
})
/**
* wrapping_assign_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping increment assignment
* @var: variable to be incremented
* @offset: amount to add
*
* Increments @var by @offset with wrap-around. Returns the resulting
* value of @var. Will not trip any wrap-around sanitizers.
*
* Returns the new value of @var.
*/
#define wrapping_assign_add(var, offset) \
({ \
typeof(var) *__ptr = &(var); \
*__ptr = wrapping_add(typeof(var), *__ptr, offset); \
})
/**
* check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
* @a: minuend; value to subtract from
* @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
* @d: pointer to store difference
*
* Returns true on wrap-around, false otherwise.
*
* *@d holds the results of the attempted subtraction, regardless of whether
* wrap-around occurred.
*/
#define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/**
* wrapping_sub() - Intentionally perform a wrapping subtraction
* @type: type for result of calculation
* @a: minuend; value to subtract from
* @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
*
* Return the potentially wrapped-around subtraction without
* tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
*/
#define wrapping_sub(type, a, b) \
({ \
type __val; \
__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &__val); \
__val; \
})
/**
* wrapping_assign_sub() - Intentionally perform a wrapping decrement assign
* @var: variable to be decremented
* @offset: amount to subtract
*
* Decrements @var by @offset with wrap-around. Returns the resulting
* value of @var. Will not trip any wrap-around sanitizers.
*
* Returns the new value of @var.
*/
#define wrapping_assign_sub(var, offset) \
({ \
typeof(var) *__ptr = &(var); \
*__ptr = wrapping_sub(typeof(var), *__ptr, offset); \
})
/**
* check_mul_overflow() - Calculate multiplication with overflow checking
* @a: first factor
* @b: second factor
* @d: pointer to store product
*
* Returns true on wrap-around, false otherwise.
*
* *@d holds the results of the attempted multiplication, regardless of whether
* wrap-around occurred.
*/
#define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d) \
__must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
/**
* wrapping_mul() - Intentionally perform a wrapping multiplication
* @type: type for result of calculation
* @a: first factor
* @b: second factor
*
* Return the potentially wrapped-around multiplication without
* tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
*/
#define wrapping_mul(type, a, b) \
({ \
type __val; \
__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, &__val); \
__val; \
})
/**
* check_shl_overflow() - Calculate a left-shifted value and check overflow
* @a: Value to be shifted
* @s: How many bits left to shift
* @d: Pointer to where to store the result
*
* Computes *@d = (@a << @s)
*
* Returns true if '*@d' cannot hold the result or when '@a << @s' doesn't
* make sense. Example conditions:
*
* - '@a << @s' causes bits to be lost when stored in *@d.
* - '@s' is garbage (e.g. negative) or so large that the result of
* '@a << @s' is guaranteed to be 0.
* - '@a' is negative.
* - '@a << @s' sets the sign bit, if any, in '*@d'.
*
* '*@d' will hold the results of the attempted shift, but is not
* considered "safe for use" if true is returned.
*/
#define check_shl_overflow(a, s, d) __must_check_overflow(({ \
typeof(a) _a = a; \
typeof(s) _s = s; \
typeof(d) _d = d; \
unsigned long long _a_full = _a; \
unsigned int _to_shift = \
overflow: Fix -Wtype-limits compilation warnings Attempt to use check_shl_overflow() with inputs of unsigned type produces the following compilation warnings. drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c: In function _set_user_rq_size_: ./include/linux/overflow.h:230:6: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits] _s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \ ^~ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:26: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:36: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift,&rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fixes: 0c66847793d1 ("overflow.h: Add arithmetic shift helper") Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
2019-03-17 10:11:14 +00:00
is_non_negative(_s) && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \
*_d = (_a_full << _to_shift); \
overflow: Fix -Wtype-limits compilation warnings Attempt to use check_shl_overflow() with inputs of unsigned type produces the following compilation warnings. drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c: In function _set_user_rq_size_: ./include/linux/overflow.h:230:6: warning: comparison of unsigned expression >= 0 is always true [-Wtype-limits] _s >= 0 && _s < 8 * sizeof(*d) ? _s : 0; \ ^~ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:26: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift, &rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ./include/linux/overflow.h:232:36: warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false [-Wtype-limits] (_to_shift != _s || *_d < 0 || _a < 0 || \ ^ drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/qp.c:5820:6: note: in expansion of macro _check_shl_overflow_ if (check_shl_overflow(rwq->wqe_count, rwq->wqe_shift,&rwq->buf_size)) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fixes: 0c66847793d1 ("overflow.h: Add arithmetic shift helper") Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
2019-03-17 10:11:14 +00:00
(_to_shift != _s || is_negative(*_d) || is_negative(_a) || \
(*_d >> _to_shift) != _a); \
}))
overflow: Introduce overflows_type() and castable_to_type() Implement a robust overflows_type() macro to test if a variable or constant value would overflow another variable or type. This can be used as a constant expression for static_assert() (which requires a constant expression[1][2]) when used on constant values. This must be constructed manually, since __builtin_add_overflow() does not produce a constant expression[3]. Additionally adds castable_to_type(), similar to __same_type(), but for checking if a constant value would overflow if cast to a given type. Add unit tests for overflows_type(), __same_type(), and castable_to_type() to the existing KUnit "overflow" test: [16:03:33] ================== overflow (21 subtests) ================== ... [16:03:33] [PASSED] overflows_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] same_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] castable_to_type_test [16:03:33] ==================== [PASSED] overflow ===================== [16:03:33] ============================================================ [16:03:33] Testing complete. Ran 21 tests: passed: 21 [16:03:33] Elapsed time: 24.022s total, 0.002s configuring, 22.598s building, 0.767s running [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert [2] C11 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:2011): 6.7.10 Static assertions [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins.html 6.56 Built-in Functions to Perform Arithmetic with Overflow Checking Built-in Function: bool __builtin_add_overflow (type1 a, type2 b, Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev Co-developed-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221024201125.1416422-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com
2022-10-24 20:11:25 +00:00
#define __overflows_type_constexpr(x, T) ( \
is_unsigned_type(typeof(x)) ? \
(x) > type_max(T) : \
overflow: Introduce overflows_type() and castable_to_type() Implement a robust overflows_type() macro to test if a variable or constant value would overflow another variable or type. This can be used as a constant expression for static_assert() (which requires a constant expression[1][2]) when used on constant values. This must be constructed manually, since __builtin_add_overflow() does not produce a constant expression[3]. Additionally adds castable_to_type(), similar to __same_type(), but for checking if a constant value would overflow if cast to a given type. Add unit tests for overflows_type(), __same_type(), and castable_to_type() to the existing KUnit "overflow" test: [16:03:33] ================== overflow (21 subtests) ================== ... [16:03:33] [PASSED] overflows_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] same_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] castable_to_type_test [16:03:33] ==================== [PASSED] overflow ===================== [16:03:33] ============================================================ [16:03:33] Testing complete. Ran 21 tests: passed: 21 [16:03:33] Elapsed time: 24.022s total, 0.002s configuring, 22.598s building, 0.767s running [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert [2] C11 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:2011): 6.7.10 Static assertions [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins.html 6.56 Built-in Functions to Perform Arithmetic with Overflow Checking Built-in Function: bool __builtin_add_overflow (type1 a, type2 b, Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev Co-developed-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221024201125.1416422-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com
2022-10-24 20:11:25 +00:00
is_unsigned_type(typeof(T)) ? \
(x) < 0 || (x) > type_max(T) : \
(x) < type_min(T) || (x) > type_max(T))
overflow: Introduce overflows_type() and castable_to_type() Implement a robust overflows_type() macro to test if a variable or constant value would overflow another variable or type. This can be used as a constant expression for static_assert() (which requires a constant expression[1][2]) when used on constant values. This must be constructed manually, since __builtin_add_overflow() does not produce a constant expression[3]. Additionally adds castable_to_type(), similar to __same_type(), but for checking if a constant value would overflow if cast to a given type. Add unit tests for overflows_type(), __same_type(), and castable_to_type() to the existing KUnit "overflow" test: [16:03:33] ================== overflow (21 subtests) ================== ... [16:03:33] [PASSED] overflows_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] same_type_test [16:03:33] [PASSED] castable_to_type_test [16:03:33] ==================== [PASSED] overflow ===================== [16:03:33] ============================================================ [16:03:33] Testing complete. Ran 21 tests: passed: 21 [16:03:33] Elapsed time: 24.022s total, 0.002s configuring, 22.598s building, 0.767s running [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert [2] C11 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:2011): 6.7.10 Static assertions [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins.html 6.56 Built-in Functions to Perform Arithmetic with Overflow Checking Built-in Function: bool __builtin_add_overflow (type1 a, type2 b, Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com> Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev Co-developed-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221024201125.1416422-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com
2022-10-24 20:11:25 +00:00
#define __overflows_type(x, T) ({ \
typeof(T) v = 0; \
check_add_overflow((x), v, &v); \
})
/**
* overflows_type - helper for checking the overflows between value, variables,
* or data type
*
* @n: source constant value or variable to be checked
* @T: destination variable or data type proposed to store @x
*
* Compares the @x expression for whether or not it can safely fit in
* the storage of the type in @T. @x and @T can have different types.
* If @x is a constant expression, this will also resolve to a constant
* expression.
*
* Returns: true if overflow can occur, false otherwise.
*/
#define overflows_type(n, T) \
__builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(n), \
__overflows_type_constexpr(n, T), \
__overflows_type(n, T))
/**
* castable_to_type - like __same_type(), but also allows for casted literals
*
* @n: variable or constant value
* @T: variable or data type
*
* Unlike the __same_type() macro, this allows a constant value as the
* first argument. If this value would not overflow into an assignment
* of the second argument's type, it returns true. Otherwise, this falls
* back to __same_type().
*/
#define castable_to_type(n, T) \
__builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(n), \
!__overflows_type_constexpr(n, T), \
__same_type(n, T))
/**
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* size_mul() - Calculate size_t multiplication with saturation at SIZE_MAX
* @factor1: first factor
* @factor2: second factor
*
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* Returns: calculate @factor1 * @factor2, both promoted to size_t,
* with any overflow causing the return value to be SIZE_MAX. The
* lvalue must be size_t to avoid implicit type conversion.
*/
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
static inline size_t __must_check size_mul(size_t factor1, size_t factor2)
{
size_t bytes;
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
if (check_mul_overflow(factor1, factor2, &bytes))
return SIZE_MAX;
return bytes;
}
/**
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* size_add() - Calculate size_t addition with saturation at SIZE_MAX
* @addend1: first addend
* @addend2: second addend
*
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* Returns: calculate @addend1 + @addend2, both promoted to size_t,
* with any overflow causing the return value to be SIZE_MAX. The
* lvalue must be size_t to avoid implicit type conversion.
*/
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
static inline size_t __must_check size_add(size_t addend1, size_t addend2)
{
size_t bytes;
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
if (check_add_overflow(addend1, addend2, &bytes))
return SIZE_MAX;
return bytes;
}
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
/**
* size_sub() - Calculate size_t subtraction with saturation at SIZE_MAX
* @minuend: value to subtract from
* @subtrahend: value to subtract from @minuend
*
* Returns: calculate @minuend - @subtrahend, both promoted to size_t,
* with any overflow causing the return value to be SIZE_MAX. For
* composition with the size_add() and size_mul() helpers, neither
* argument may be SIZE_MAX (or the result with be forced to SIZE_MAX).
* The lvalue must be size_t to avoid implicit type conversion.
*/
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
static inline size_t __must_check size_sub(size_t minuend, size_t subtrahend)
{
size_t bytes;
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
if (minuend == SIZE_MAX || subtrahend == SIZE_MAX ||
check_sub_overflow(minuend, subtrahend, &bytes))
return SIZE_MAX;
return bytes;
}
/**
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* array_size() - Calculate size of 2-dimensional array.
* @a: dimension one
* @b: dimension two
*
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* Calculates size of 2-dimensional array: @a * @b.
*
* Returns: number of bytes needed to represent the array or SIZE_MAX on
* overflow.
*/
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
#define array_size(a, b) size_mul(a, b)
/**
* array3_size() - Calculate size of 3-dimensional array.
* @a: dimension one
* @b: dimension two
* @c: dimension three
*
* Calculates size of 3-dimensional array: @a * @b * @c.
*
* Returns: number of bytes needed to represent the array or SIZE_MAX on
* overflow.
*/
#define array3_size(a, b, c) size_mul(size_mul(a, b), c)
/**
* flex_array_size() - Calculate size of a flexible array member
* within an enclosing structure.
* @p: Pointer to the structure.
* @member: Name of the flexible array member.
* @count: Number of elements in the array.
*
* Calculates size of a flexible array of @count number of @member
* elements, at the end of structure @p.
*
* Return: number of bytes needed or SIZE_MAX on overflow.
*/
#define flex_array_size(p, member, count) \
__builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(count), \
(count) * sizeof(*(p)->member) + __must_be_array((p)->member), \
size_mul(count, sizeof(*(p)->member) + __must_be_array((p)->member)))
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
/**
* struct_size() - Calculate size of structure with trailing flexible array.
* @p: Pointer to the structure.
* @member: Name of the array member.
* @count: Number of elements in the array.
*
overflow: Add struct_size_t() helper While struct_size() is normally used in situations where the structure type already has a pointer instance, there are places where no variable is available. In the past, this has been worked around by using a typed NULL first argument, but this is a bit ugly. Add a helper to do this, and replace the handful of instances of the code pattern with it. Instances were found with this Coccinelle script: @struct_size_t@ identifier STRUCT, MEMBER; expression COUNT; @@ - struct_size((struct STRUCT *)\(0\|NULL\), + struct_size_t(struct STRUCT, MEMBER, COUNT) Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Cc: James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Cc: HighPoint Linux Team <linux@highpoint-tech.com> Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com> Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> Cc: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com> Cc: Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com> Cc: Shivasharan S <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com> Cc: Don Brace <don.brace@microchip.com> Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@huawei.com> Cc: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com Cc: storagedev@microchip.com Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Acked-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230522211810.never.421-kees@kernel.org
2023-05-22 21:18:13 +00:00
* Calculates size of memory needed for structure of @p followed by an
overflow: Implement size_t saturating arithmetic helpers In order to perform more open-coded replacements of common allocation size arithmetic, the kernel needs saturating (SIZE_MAX) helpers for multiplication, addition, and subtraction. For example, it is common in allocators, especially on realloc, to add to an existing size: p = krealloc(map->patch, sizeof(struct reg_sequence) * (map->patch_regs + num_regs), GFP_KERNEL); There is no existing saturating replacement for this calculation, and just leaving the addition open coded inside array_size() could potentially overflow as well. For example, an overflow in an expression for a size_t argument might wrap to zero: array_size(anything, something_at_size_max + 1) == 0 Introduce size_mul(), size_add(), and size_sub() helpers that implicitly promote arguments to size_t and saturated calculations for use in allocations. With these helpers it is also possible to redefine array_size(), array3_size(), flex_array_size(), and struct_size() in terms of the new helpers. As with the check_*_overflow() helpers, the new helpers use __must_check, though what is really desired is a way to make sure that assignment is only to a size_t lvalue. Without this, it's still possible to introduce overflow/underflow via type conversion (i.e. from size_t to int). Enforcing this will currently need to be left to static analysis or future use of -Wconversion. Additionally update the overflow unit tests to force runtime evaluation for the pathological cases. Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2021-09-18 22:17:53 +00:00
* array of @count number of @member elements.
*
* Return: number of bytes needed or SIZE_MAX on overflow.
*/
#define struct_size(p, member, count) \
__builtin_choose_expr(__is_constexpr(count), \
sizeof(*(p)) + flex_array_size(p, member, count), \
size_add(sizeof(*(p)), flex_array_size(p, member, count)))
overflow: Add struct_size_t() helper While struct_size() is normally used in situations where the structure type already has a pointer instance, there are places where no variable is available. In the past, this has been worked around by using a typed NULL first argument, but this is a bit ugly. Add a helper to do this, and replace the handful of instances of the code pattern with it. Instances were found with this Coccinelle script: @struct_size_t@ identifier STRUCT, MEMBER; expression COUNT; @@ - struct_size((struct STRUCT *)\(0\|NULL\), + struct_size_t(struct STRUCT, MEMBER, COUNT) Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com> Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Cc: James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com> Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> Cc: HighPoint Linux Team <linux@highpoint-tech.com> Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com> Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> Cc: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com> Cc: Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com> Cc: Shivasharan S <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com> Cc: Don Brace <don.brace@microchip.com> Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Cc: Guo Xuenan <guoxuenan@huawei.com> Cc: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com> Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com Cc: storagedev@microchip.com Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Acked-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230522211810.never.421-kees@kernel.org
2023-05-22 21:18:13 +00:00
/**
* struct_size_t() - Calculate size of structure with trailing flexible array
* @type: structure type name.
* @member: Name of the array member.
* @count: Number of elements in the array.
*
* Calculates size of memory needed for structure @type followed by an
* array of @count number of @member elements. Prefer using struct_size()
* when possible instead, to keep calculations associated with a specific
* instance variable of type @type.
*
* Return: number of bytes needed or SIZE_MAX on overflow.
*/
#define struct_size_t(type, member, count) \
struct_size((type *)NULL, member, count)
/**
* _DEFINE_FLEX() - helper macro for DEFINE_FLEX() family.
* Enables caller macro to pass (different) initializer.
*
* @type: structure type name, including "struct" keyword.
* @name: Name for a variable to define.
* @member: Name of the array member.
* @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
* @initializer: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
*/
#define _DEFINE_FLEX(type, name, member, count, initializer...) \
_Static_assert(__builtin_constant_p(count), \
"onstack flex array members require compile-time const count"); \
union { \
u8 bytes[struct_size_t(type, member, count)]; \
type obj; \
} name##_u initializer; \
type *name = (type *)&name##_u
/**
* DEFINE_RAW_FLEX() - Define an on-stack instance of structure with a trailing
* flexible array member, when it does not have a __counted_by annotation.
*
* @type: structure type name, including "struct" keyword.
* @name: Name for a variable to define.
* @member: Name of the array member.
* @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
*
* Define a zeroed, on-stack, instance of @type structure with a trailing
* flexible array member.
* Use __struct_size(@name) to get compile-time size of it afterwards.
*/
#define DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(type, name, member, count) \
_DEFINE_FLEX(type, name, member, count, = {})
/**
* DEFINE_FLEX() - Define an on-stack instance of structure with a trailing
* flexible array member.
*
* @TYPE: structure type name, including "struct" keyword.
* @NAME: Name for a variable to define.
* @MEMBER: Name of the array member.
* @COUNTER: Name of the __counted_by member.
* @COUNT: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
*
* Define a zeroed, on-stack, instance of @TYPE structure with a trailing
* flexible array member.
* Use __struct_size(@NAME) to get compile-time size of it afterwards.
*/
#define DEFINE_FLEX(TYPE, NAME, MEMBER, COUNTER, COUNT) \
_DEFINE_FLEX(TYPE, NAME, MEMBER, COUNT, = { .obj.COUNTER = COUNT, })
compiler.h: enable builtin overflow checkers and add fallback code This adds wrappers for the __builtin overflow checkers present in gcc 5.1+ as well as fallback implementations for earlier compilers. It's not that easy to implement the fully generic __builtin_X_overflow(T1 a, T2 b, T3 *d) in macros, so the fallback code assumes that T1, T2 and T3 are the same. We obviously don't want the wrappers to have different semantics depending on $GCC_VERSION, so we also insist on that even when using the builtins. There are a few problems with the 'a+b < a' idiom for checking for overflow: For signed types, it relies on undefined behaviour and is not actually complete (it doesn't check underflow; e.g. INT_MIN+INT_MIN == 0 isn't caught). Due to type promotion it is wrong for all types (signed and unsigned) narrower than int. Similarly, when a and b does not have the same type, there are subtle cases like u32 a; if (a + sizeof(foo) < a) return -EOVERFLOW; a += sizeof(foo); where the test is always false on 64 bit platforms. Add to that that it is not always possible to determine the types involved at a glance. The new overflow.h is somewhat bulky, but that's mostly a result of trying to be type-generic, complete (e.g. catching not only overflow but also signed underflow) and not relying on undefined behaviour. Linus is of course right [1] that for unsigned subtraction a-b, the right way to check for overflow (underflow) is "b > a" and not "__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &d)", but that's just one out of six cases covered here, and included mostly for completeness. So is it worth it? I think it is, if nothing else for the documentation value of seeing if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &d)) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(d); instead of the open-coded (and possibly wrong and/or incomplete and/or UBsan-tickling) if (a+b < a) return -EGOAWAY; do_stuff_with(a+b); While gcc does recognize the 'a+b < a' idiom for testing unsigned add overflow, it doesn't do nearly as good for unsigned multiplication (there's also no single well-established idiom). So using check_mul_overflow in kcalloc and friends may also make gcc generate slightly better code. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/658 Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
2018-05-07 22:36:27 +00:00
#endif /* __LINUX_OVERFLOW_H */