On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:52:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:03 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In an effort to separate intentional arithmetic wrap-around from > > unexpected wrap-around, we need to refactor places that depend on this > > kind of math. One of the most common code patterns of this is: > > > > VAR + value < VAR > > > > Notably, this is considered "undefined behavior" for signed and pointer > > types, which the kernel works around by using the -fno-strict-overflow > > option in the build[1] (which used to just be -fwrapv). Regardless, we > > want to get the kernel source to the position where we can meaningfully > > instrument arithmetic wrap-around conditions and catch them when they > > are unexpected, regardless of whether they are signed[2], unsigned[3], > > or pointer[4] types. > > > > Refactor open-coded wrap-around addition test to use add_would_overflow(). > > This paves the way to enabling the wrap-around sanitizers in the future. > > > > Link: https://git.kernel.org/linus/68df3755e383e6fecf2354a67b08f92f18536594 [1] > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/26 [2] > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/27 [3] > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/344 [4] > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/custom_method.c | 2 +- > > I may attempt to drop custom_method.c in this cycle, is there a > problem if I take this into my tree for now? The helper doesn't exist in tree yet, but it may be a bit before these refactors land, so if custom_method vanishes before then, that's great! :) -Kees -- Kees Cook