[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:48:04 +0000
From: Adam Sampson <ats@...og.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, "the arch\/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/10] asm/nospec, array_ptr: sanitize speculative array de-references
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> writes:
>> +/*
>> + * If idx is negative or if idx > size then bit 63 is set in the mask,
>> + * and the value of ~(-1L) is zero. When the mask is zero, bounds check
>> + * failed, array_ptr will return NULL.
>> + */
>> +#ifndef array_ptr_mask
>> +static inline unsigned long array_ptr_mask(unsigned long idx,
>> unsigned long sz)
>> +{
>> + return ~(long)(idx | (sz - 1 - idx)) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>
> Nit: Maybe add a comment saying that this is equivalent to
> "return ((long)idx >= 0 && idx < sz) ? ULONG_MAX : 0"?
That's only true when sz < LONG_MAX, which is documented below but not
here; it's also different from the asm version, which doesn't do the idx
<= LONG_MAX check. So making the constraint explicit would be a good idea.
>From a bit of experimentation, when the top bit of sz is set, this
expression, the C version and the assembler version all have different
behaviour. For example, with 32-bit unsigned long:
index=00000000 size=80000001: expr=ffffffff c=00000000 asm=ffffffff
index=80000000 size=80000001: expr=00000000 c=00000000 asm=ffffffff
index=00000000 size=a0000000: expr=ffffffff c=00000000 asm=ffffffff
index=00000001 size=a0000000: expr=ffffffff c=00000000 asm=ffffffff
index=fffffffe size=ffffffff: expr=00000000 c=00000000 asm=ffffffff
It may be worth noting that:
return 0 - ((long) (idx < sz));
causes GCC, on ia32 and amd64, to generate exactly the same cmp/sbb
sequence as in Linus's asm. Are there architectures where this form
would allow speculation?
Thanks,
--
Adam Sampson <ats@...og.org> <http://offog.org/>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
