[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:41:33 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr, Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add kvmalloc_ab_c and kvzalloc_struct
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:29:04PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 22:16, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> (I just wish C had a sensible way to catch overflow...)
> >
> > Every CPU I ever worked with had an "overflow" bit ... do we have a
> > friend on the C standards ctte who might figure out a way to let us
> > write code that checks it?
>
> gcc 5.1+ (I think) have the __builtin_OP_overflow checks that should
> generate reasonable code. Too bad there's no completely generic
> check_all_ops_in_this_expression(a+b*c+d/e, or_jump_here). Though it's
> hard to define what they should be checked against - probably would
> require all subexpressions (including the variables themselves) to have
> the same type.
Nevertheless these generate much better code than our current safeguards!
extern void *malloc(unsigned long);
#define ULONG_MAX (~0UL)
#define SZ 8UL
void *a(unsigned long a)
{
if ((ULONG_MAX / SZ) > a)
return 0;
return malloc(a * SZ);
}
void *b(unsigned long a)
{
unsigned long c;
if (__builtin_mul_overflow(a, SZ, &c))
return 0;
return malloc(c);
}
(a lot of code uses a constant '8' as sizeof(void *)). Here's the
difference with gcc 7.3:
0: 48 b8 fe ff ff ff ff movabs $0x1ffffffffffffffe,%rax
7: ff ff 1f
a: 48 39 c7 cmp %rax,%rdi
d: 76 09 jbe 18 <a+0x18>
f: 48 c1 e7 03 shl $0x3,%rdi
13: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 18 <a+0x18>
14: R_X86_64_PLT32 malloc-0x4
18: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
1a: c3 retq
vs
20: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
23: ba 08 00 00 00 mov $0x8,%edx
28: 48 f7 e2 mul %rdx
2b: 48 89 c7 mov %rax,%rdi
2e: 70 05 jo 35 <b+0x15>
30: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 35 <b+0x15>
31: R_X86_64_PLT32 malloc-0x4
35: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
37: c3 retq
We've traded a shl for a mul (because shl doesn't set Overflow, only
Carry, and that's only bit 65, not an OR of bits 35-n), but we lose the
movabs and cmp. I'd rather run the second code fragment than the first.
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.
