Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:46:42 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, 
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>, 
	"Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, 
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, 
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Skip single-eval logic on literals in min()/max()

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I don't want to weaken the type enforcement, and I _thought_ you had
> done that __builtin_types_compatible_p() to keep it in place.

I thought so too (that originally came from Josh), but on removal, I
was surprised that the checking was retained. :)

> But if that's not why you did it, then why was it there at all? If the
> type warning shows through even if it's in the other expression, then
> just a
>
>
> #define __min(t1, t2, x, y)                             \
>         __builtin_choose_expr(                          \
>                 __builtin_constant_p(x) &               \
>                 __builtin_constant_p(y),                \
>                 (t1)(x) < (t2)(y) ? (t1)(x) : (t2)(y),  \
>                 __single_eval_min(t1, t2,               \
>    ...
>
> would seem to be sufficient?
>
> Because logically, the only thing that matters is that x and y don't
> have any side effects and can be evaluated twice, and
> "__builtin_constant_p()" is already a much stronger version of that.
>
> Hmm? The __builtin_types_compatible_p() just doesn't seem to matter
> for the only thing I thought it was there for.

Yup, agreed. I'll drop it.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.