Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 1/8] overflow: Move and add few utility macros into overflow

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 25.08.2022 18:47, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 05:45:07PM +0900, Gwan-gyeong Mun wrote:
It moves overflows_type utility macro into overflow header from i915_utils
header. The overflows_type can be used to catch the truncaion (overflow)
between different data types. And it adds check_assign() macro which
performs an assigning source value into destination ptr along with an
overflow check. overflow_type macro has been improved to handle the signbit
by gcc's built-in overflow check function. And it adds overflows_ptr()
helper macro for checking the overflows between a value and a pointer
type/value.

v3: Add is_type_unsigned() macro (Mauro)
     Modify overflows_type() macro to consider signed data types (Mauro)
     Fix the problem that safe_conversion() macro always returns true
v4: Fix kernel-doc markups
v6: Move macro addition location so that it can be used by other than drm
     subsystem (Jani, Mauro, Andi)
     Change is_type_unsigned to is_unsigned_type to have the same name form
     as is_signed_type macro
v8: Add check_assign() and remove safe_conversion() (Kees)
     Fix overflows_type() to use gcc's built-in overflow function (Andrzej)
     Add overflows_ptr() to allow overflow checking when assigning a value
     into a pointer variable (G.G.)
v9: Fix overflows_type() to use __builtin_add_overflow() instead of
     __builtin_add_overflow_p() (Andrzej)
     Fix overflows_ptr() to use overflows_type() with the unsigned long type
     (Andrzej)

Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mauro.chehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> (v5)
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_user_extensions.c |  3 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h           |  5 +-
  include/linux/overflow.h                    | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++
  3 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_user_extensions.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_user_extensions.c
index c822d0aafd2d..6f6b5b910968 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_user_extensions.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_user_extensions.c
@@ -50,8 +50,7 @@ int i915_user_extensions(struct i915_user_extension __user *ext,
  		if (err)
  			return err;
- if (get_user(next, &ext->next_extension) ||
-		    overflows_type(next, ext))
+		if (get_user(next, &ext->next_extension) || overflows_ptr(next))
  			return -EFAULT;
ext = u64_to_user_ptr(next);

I continue to dislike the layers of macros and specialization here.
This is just a fancy version of check_assign():

	if (get_user(next, &ext->next_extension) || check_assign(next, &ext))
		return -EFAULT;

However, the __builtin_*_overflow() family only wants to work on
integral types, so this needs to be slightly expanded:

	uintptr_t kptr;
	...
	if (get_user(next, &ext->next_extension) || check_assign(next, &kptr))
		return -EFAULT;

	ext = (void * __user)kptr;

But, it does seem like the actual problem here is that u64_to_user_ptr()
is not performing the checking? It's used heavily in the drm code.

Is a check_assign_user_ptr() needed?

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
index c10d68cdc3ca..eb0ded23fa9c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
  #include <linux/types.h>
  #include <linux/workqueue.h>
  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
#ifdef CONFIG_X86
  #include <asm/hypervisor.h>
@@ -111,10 +112,6 @@ bool i915_error_injected(void);
  #define range_overflows_end_t(type, start, size, max) \
  	range_overflows_end((type)(start), (type)(size), (type)(max))
-/* Note we don't consider signbits :| */
-#define overflows_type(x, T) \
-	(sizeof(x) > sizeof(T) && (x) >> BITS_PER_TYPE(T))
-
  #define ptr_mask_bits(ptr, n) ({					\
  	unsigned long __v = (unsigned long)(ptr);			\
  	(typeof(ptr))(__v & -BIT(n));					\
diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
index f1221d11f8e5..6af9df1d67a1 100644
--- a/include/linux/overflow.h
+++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
@@ -52,6 +52,68 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
  	return unlikely(overflow);
  }
+/**
+ * overflows_type - helper for checking the overflows between data types or
+ *                  values
+ *
+ * @x: Source value or data type for overflow check
+ * @T: Destination value or data type for overflow check
+ *
+ * It compares the values or data type between the first and second argument to
+ * check whether overflow can occur when assigning the first argument to the
+ * variable of the second argument. Source and Destination can be singned or
+ * unsigned data types. Source and Destination can be different data types.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * True if overflow can occur, false otherwise.
+ */
+#define overflows_type(x, T) __must_check_overflow(({	\
+	typeof(T) v = 0;				\
+	__builtin_add_overflow((x), v, &v);		\
+}))

I'd like to avoid "externalizing" these kinds of checks when the better
path is to catch the issue at operation type (add, sub, mul, assign).
Looking at existing users, I see stuff like:

                 if (overflows_type(item.query_id - 1, unsigned long))
                         return -EINVAL;

                 func_idx = item.query_id - 1;

This requires too much open-coded checking, IMO. It's better as:

		if (check_assign(item.query_id - 1, &func_idx))
			return -EINVAL;

or other similar:

         if (overflows_type(user->slice_mask, context->slice_mask) ||
	...
         context->slice_mask = user->slice_mask;

and some that don't make sense to me. Why check argument types? Is this
trying to avoid implicit type conversions?

So, if it's _really_ needed, I can live with adding overflows_type().

+
+/**
+ * overflows_ptr - helper for checking the occurrence of overflows when a value
+ *                 assigns to  the pointer data type
+ *
+ * @x: Source value for overflow check
+ *
+ * gcc's built-in overflow check functions don't support checking between the
+ * pointer type and non-pointer type. And ILP32 and LP64 have the same bit size
+ * between long and pointer. Therefore it internally compares the source value
+ * and unsigned long data type for checking overflow.
+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * True if overflow can occur, false otherwise.
+ */
+#define overflows_ptr(x) __must_check_overflow(overflows_type(x, unsigned long))

I'd rather not have this -- it's just a specialized use of
overflows_type(), and only used in 1 place.

+
+/**
+ * check_assign - perform an assigning source value into destination ptr along
+ *                with an overflow check.
+ *
+ * @value: Source value
+ * @ptr: Destination pointer address, If the pointer type is not used,
+ *       a warning message is output during build.
+ *
+ * It checks internally the ptr is a pointer type. And it uses gcc's built-in
+ * overflow check function.
+ * It does not use the check_*() wrapper functions, but directly uses gcc's
+ * built-in overflow check function so that it can be used even when
+ * the type of value and the type pointed to by ptr are different without build
+ * warning messages.

This is a good point: the check_{add,sub,mul}_overflow() helpers
currently require all the params be the same type, which rather limits
their usage. Perhaps this can be weakened now that we're not using[1]
the fallback logic any more? (Separate patch.)

+ *
+ * Returns:
+ * If the value would overflow the destination, it returns true. If not return
+ * false. When overflow does not occur, the assigning into ptr from value
+ * succeeds. It follows the return policy as other check_*_overflow() functions
+ * return non-zero as a failure.
+ */
+#define check_assign(value, ptr) __must_check_overflow(({	\
+	typecheck_pointer(ptr); 		\
+	__builtin_add_overflow(0, value, ptr);	\
+}))

But yes, this looks correct. I really like it. :)


One more thing, I suspect __builtin_add_overflow checks already if ptr is pointer, so typecheck_pointer seems redundant.

Regards
Andrzej



+
  /*
   * For simplicity and code hygiene, the fallback code below insists on
   * a, b and *d having the same type (similar to the min() and max()
--
2.37.1


-Kees

[1] 4eb6bd55cfb2 ("compiler.h: drop fallback overflow checkers")





[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux