public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] list_debug: Introduce CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST_MINIMAL
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 11:30:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230809113021.63e5ef66@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZNNi/4L1mD8XPNix@elver.google.com>

On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 11:57:19 +0200
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:

>  static __always_inline bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new,
>  					     struct list_head *prev,
>  					     struct list_head *next)
>  {
> -	return __list_add_valid_or_report(new, prev, next);
> +	bool ret = true;
> +
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HARDEN_LIST)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * With the hardening version, elide checking if next and prev
> +		 * are NULL, since the immediate dereference of them below would
> +		 * result in a fault if NULL.
> +		 *
> +		 * With the reduced set of checks, we can afford to inline the
> +		 * checks, which also gives the compiler a chance to elide some
> +		 * of them completely if they can be proven at compile-time. If
> +		 * one of the pre-conditions does not hold, the slow-path will
> +		 * show a report which pre-condition failed.
> +		 */
> +		if (likely(next->prev == prev && prev->next == next && new != prev && new != next))
> +			return true;
> +		ret = false;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret &= __list_add_valid_or_report(new, prev, next);
> +	return ret;
>  }

I would actually prefer DEBUG_LIST to select HARDEN_LIST and not the other
way around. It logically doesn't make sense that HARDEN_LIST would select
DEBUG_LIST. That is, I could by default want HARDEN_LIST always on, but not
DEBUG_LIST (because who knows, it may add other features I don't want). But
then, I may have stumbled over something and want more info, and enable
DEBUG_LIST (while still having HARDEN_LIST) enabled.

I think you are looking at this from an implementation perspective and not
the normal developer one.

This would mean the above function should get enabled by CONFIG_HARDEN_LIST
(and CONFIG_DEBUG would select CONFIG_HARDEN) and would look more like:

static __always_inline bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new,
					     struct list_head *prev,
					     struct list_head *next)
{
	bool ret = true;

	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST)) {
		/*
		 * With the hardening version, elide checking if next and prev
		 * are NULL, since the immediate dereference of them below would
		 * result in a fault if NULL.
		 *
		 * With the reduced set of checks, we can afford to inline the
		 * checks, which also gives the compiler a chance to elide some
		 * of them completely if they can be proven at compile-time. If
		 * one of the pre-conditions does not hold, the slow-path will
		 * show a report which pre-condition failed.
		 */
		if (likely(next->prev == prev && prev->next == next && new != prev && new != next))
			return true;
		ret = false;
	}

	ret &= __list_add_valid_or_report(new, prev, next);
	return ret;
}

That is, if DEBUG_LIST is enabled, we always call the
__list_add_valid_or_report(), but if only HARDEN_LIST is enabled, then we
do the shortcut.

-- Steve

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-08-09 15:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-08 10:17 [PATCH v3 1/3] compiler_types: Introduce the Clang __preserve_most function attribute Marco Elver
2023-08-08 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] list_debug: Introduce inline wrappers for debug checks Marco Elver
2023-08-08 10:17 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] list_debug: Introduce CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST_MINIMAL Marco Elver
2023-08-08 21:27   ` Kees Cook
2023-08-09  7:35     ` Marco Elver
2023-08-09  9:57       ` Marco Elver
2023-08-09 15:30         ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2023-08-09 16:32           ` Marco Elver
2023-08-10 20:11             ` Kees Cook
2023-08-11  9:10               ` Marco Elver
2023-08-11 19:33               ` Steven Rostedt
2023-08-08 12:35 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] compiler_types: Introduce the Clang __preserve_most function attribute Mark Rutland

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230809113021.63e5ef66@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=james.morse@arm.com \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=trix@redhat.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox