Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: atomics: lse: Silence intentional wrapping addition

From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: atomics: lse: Silence intentional wrapping addition
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 08:00:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202405020759.55CD47C@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240502112127.GA17013@willie-the-truck>

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:21:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:17:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Annotate atomic_add_return() and atomic_sub_return() to avoid signed
> > overflow instrumentation. They are expected to wrap around.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/atomic_lse.h | 10 ++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> How come the ll/sc routines (in atomic_ll_sc.h) don't need the same
> treatment? If that's just an oversight, then maybe it's better to
> instrument the higher-level wrappers in asm/atomic.h?

Those are all written in asm, so there's no open-coded C arithmetic that
the sanitizers will notice. All is well there! :)

-- 
Kees Cook