[PATCH v5 0/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping helpers

[PATCH v5 0/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping helpers

[Kees Cook]

v5: drop redundant checks (gustavo)
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20240206102354.make.081-kees@kernel.org/
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240205090854.make.507-kees@kernel.org/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240130220218.it.154-kees@kernel.org/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240129182845.work.694-kees@kernel.org/

Hi,

In preparation for gaining instrumentation for signed[1], unsigned[2], and
pointer[3] wrap-around, expand the overflow header to include wrap-around
helpers that can be used to annotate arithmetic where wrapped calculations
are expected (e.g. atomics).

After spending time getting the unsigned integer wrap-around sanitizer
running warning-free on a basic x86_64 boot[4], I think the add/sub/mul
helpers first argument being the output type makes the most sense (as
suggested by Rasmus).

-Kees


Kees Cook (3):
  overflow: Adjust check_*_overflow() kern-doc to reflect results
  overflow: Introduce wrapping_add(), wrapping_sub(), and wrapping_mul()
  overflow: Introduce wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec()

 include/linux/overflow.h | 98 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 lib/overflow_kunit.c     | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v5 1/3] overflow: Adjust check_*_overflow() kern-doc to reflect results

[Kees Cook]

The check_*_overflow() helpers will return results with potentially
wrapped-around values. These values have always been checked by the
selftests, so avoid the confusing language in the kern-doc. The idea of
"safe for use" was relative to the expectation of whether or not the
caller wants a wrapped value -- the calculation itself will always follow
arithmetic wrapping rules.

Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 include/linux/overflow.h | 18 ++++++------------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
index 7b5cf4a5cd19..4e741ebb8005 100644
--- a/include/linux/overflow.h
+++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
@@ -57,11 +57,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
  * @b: second addend
  * @d: pointer to store sum
  *
- * Returns 0 on success.
+ * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
  *
- * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, but is not considered
- * "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates that the
- * sum has overflowed or been truncated.
+ * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, which may wrap-around.
  */
 #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
@@ -72,11 +70,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
  * @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
  * @d: pointer to store difference
  *
- * Returns 0 on success.
+ * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
  *
- * *@d holds the results of the attempted subtraction, but is not considered
- * "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates that the
- * difference has underflowed or been truncated.
+ * *@d holds the results of the attempted subtraction, which may wrap-around.
  */
 #define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
@@ -87,11 +83,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
  * @b: second factor
  * @d: pointer to store product
  *
- * Returns 0 on success.
+ * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around.
  *
- * *@d holds the results of the attempted multiplication, but is not
- * considered "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates
- * that the product has overflowed or been truncated.
+ * *@d holds the results of the attempted multiplication, which may wrap-around.
  */
 #define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
-- 
2.34.1

[PATCH v5 2/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_add(), wrapping_sub(), and wrapping_mul()

[Kees Cook]

Provide helpers that will perform wrapping addition, subtraction, or
multiplication without tripping the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers. The
first argument is the type under which the wrap-around should happen
with. In other words, these two calls will get very different results:

	wrapping_mul(int, 50, 50) == 2500
	wrapping_mul(u8,  50, 50) ==  196

Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.

Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 include/linux/overflow.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/overflow_kunit.c     | 24 ++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
index 4e741ebb8005..849a49fb496e 100644
--- a/include/linux/overflow.h
+++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
@@ -64,6 +64,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
 #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
 
+/**
+ * wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: first addend
+ * @b: second addend
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_add(type, a, b)				\
+	({							\
+		type __val;					\
+		__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val);		\
+		__val;						\
+	})
+
 /**
  * check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
  * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
@@ -77,6 +93,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
 #define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
 
+/**
+ * wrapping_sub() - Intentionally perform a wrapping subtraction
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
+ * @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around subtraction without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_sub(type, a, b)				\
+	({							\
+		type __val;					\
+		__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &__val);		\
+		__val;						\
+	})
+
 /**
  * check_mul_overflow() - Calculate multiplication with overflow checking
  * @a: first factor
@@ -90,6 +122,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
 #define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d)	\
 	__must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
 
+/**
+ * wrapping_mul() - Intentionally perform a wrapping multiplication
+ * @type: type for result of calculation
+ * @a: first factor
+ * @b: second factor
+ *
+ * Return the potentially wrapped-around multiplication without
+ * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
+ */
+#define wrapping_mul(type, a, b)				\
+	({							\
+		type __val;					\
+		__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, &__val);		\
+		__val;						\
+	})
+
 /**
  * check_shl_overflow() - Calculate a left-shifted value and check overflow
  * @a: Value to be shifted
diff --git a/lib/overflow_kunit.c b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
index c527f6b75789..d3fdb906d3fe 100644
--- a/lib/overflow_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
@@ -258,20 +258,36 @@ DEFINE_TEST_ARRAY(s64) = {
 									\
 	_of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(a, b, &_r);			\
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _of, of,				\
-		"expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n",	\
+		"expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n",	\
 		a, b, of ? "" : " not", #t);				\
 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _r, r,				\
-		"expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
+		"expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
 		a, b, r, _r, #t);					\
 	/* Check for internal macro side-effects. */			\
 	_of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(_a_orig++, _b_orig++, &_r);	\
-	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
-	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump,			\
+		"Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n");	\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump,			\
+		"Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n");	\
+									\
+	_r = wrapping_ ## op(t, a, b);					\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, _r == r,				\
+		"expected wrap "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
+		a, b, r, _r, #t);					\
+	/* Check for internal macro side-effects. */			\
+	_a_orig = a;							\
+	_b_orig = b;							\
+	_r = wrapping_ ## op(t, _a_orig++, _b_orig++);			\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump,			\
+		"Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n");	\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump,			\
+		"Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n");	\
 } while (0)
 
 #define DEFINE_TEST_FUNC_TYPED(n, t, fmt)				\
 static void do_test_ ## n(struct kunit *test, const struct test_ ## n *p) \
 {									\
+	/* check_{add,sub,mul}_overflow() and wrapping_{add,sub,mul} */	\
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->a, p->b, p->sum, p->s_of);	\
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->b, p->a, p->sum, p->s_of);	\
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, sub, "-", p->a, p->b, p->diff, p->d_of);	\
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_add(), wrapping_sub(), and wrapping_mul()

[Marco Elver]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 16:24, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Provide helpers that will perform wrapping addition, subtraction, or
> multiplication without tripping the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers. The
> first argument is the type under which the wrap-around should happen
> with. In other words, these two calls will get very different results:
>
>         wrapping_mul(int, 50, 50) == 2500
>         wrapping_mul(u8,  50, 50) ==  196
>
> Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
>
> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
> Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
> Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>

> ---
>  include/linux/overflow.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  lib/overflow_kunit.c     | 24 ++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> index 4e741ebb8005..849a49fb496e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> @@ -64,6 +64,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
>  #define check_add_overflow(a, b, d)    \
>         __must_check_overflow(__builtin_add_overflow(a, b, d))
>
> +/**
> + * wrapping_add() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
> + * @type: type for result of calculation
> + * @a: first addend
> + * @b: second addend
> + *
> + * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
> + * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
> + */
> +#define wrapping_add(type, a, b)                               \
> +       ({                                                      \
> +               type __val;                                     \
> +               __builtin_add_overflow(a, b, &__val);           \
> +               __val;                                          \
> +       })
> +
>  /**
>   * check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
>   * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
> @@ -77,6 +93,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
>  #define check_sub_overflow(a, b, d)    \
>         __must_check_overflow(__builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, d))
>
> +/**
> + * wrapping_sub() - Intentionally perform a wrapping subtraction
> + * @type: type for result of calculation
> + * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
> + * @b: subtrahend; value to subtract from @a
> + *
> + * Return the potentially wrapped-around subtraction without
> + * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
> + */
> +#define wrapping_sub(type, a, b)                               \
> +       ({                                                      \
> +               type __val;                                     \
> +               __builtin_sub_overflow(a, b, &__val);           \
> +               __val;                                          \
> +       })
> +
>  /**
>   * check_mul_overflow() - Calculate multiplication with overflow checking
>   * @a: first factor
> @@ -90,6 +122,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
>  #define check_mul_overflow(a, b, d)    \
>         __must_check_overflow(__builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, d))
>
> +/**
> + * wrapping_mul() - Intentionally perform a wrapping multiplication
> + * @type: type for result of calculation
> + * @a: first factor
> + * @b: second factor
> + *
> + * Return the potentially wrapped-around multiplication without
> + * tripping any wrap-around sanitizers that may be enabled.
> + */
> +#define wrapping_mul(type, a, b)                               \
> +       ({                                                      \
> +               type __val;                                     \
> +               __builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, &__val);           \
> +               __val;                                          \
> +       })
> +
>  /**
>   * check_shl_overflow() - Calculate a left-shifted value and check overflow
>   * @a: Value to be shifted
> diff --git a/lib/overflow_kunit.c b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
> index c527f6b75789..d3fdb906d3fe 100644
> --- a/lib/overflow_kunit.c
> +++ b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
> @@ -258,20 +258,36 @@ DEFINE_TEST_ARRAY(s64) = {
>                                                                         \
>         _of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(a, b, &_r);                     \
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _of, of,                              \
> -               "expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n", \
> +               "expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" to%s overflow (type %s)\n",   \
>                 a, b, of ? "" : " not", #t);                            \
>         KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _r, r,                                \
> -               "expected "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
> +               "expected check "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
>                 a, b, r, _r, #t);                                       \
>         /* Check for internal macro side-effects. */                    \
>         _of = check_ ## op ## _overflow(_a_orig++, _b_orig++, &_r);     \
> -       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
> -       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump, "Unexpected " #op " macro side-effect!\n"); \
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump,                     \
> +               "Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n");       \
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump,                     \
> +               "Unexpected check " #op " macro side-effect!\n");       \
> +                                                                       \
> +       _r = wrapping_ ## op(t, a, b);                                  \
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, _r == r,                            \
> +               "expected wrap "fmt" "sym" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt" (type %s)\n", \
> +               a, b, r, _r, #t);                                       \
> +       /* Check for internal macro side-effects. */                    \
> +       _a_orig = a;                                                    \
> +       _b_orig = b;                                                    \
> +       _r = wrapping_ ## op(t, _a_orig++, _b_orig++);                  \
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _a_orig, _a_bump,                     \
> +               "Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n");        \
> +       KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump,                     \
> +               "Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n");        \
>  } while (0)
>
>  #define DEFINE_TEST_FUNC_TYPED(n, t, fmt)                              \
>  static void do_test_ ## n(struct kunit *test, const struct test_ ## n *p) \
>  {                                                                      \
> +       /* check_{add,sub,mul}_overflow() and wrapping_{add,sub,mul} */ \
>         check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->a, p->b, p->sum, p->s_of);    \
>         check_one_op(t, fmt, add, "+", p->b, p->a, p->sum, p->s_of);    \
>         check_one_op(t, fmt, sub, "-", p->a, p->b, p->diff, p->d_of);   \
> --
> 2.34.1
>

[PATCH v5 3/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec()

[Kees Cook]

This allows replacements of the idioms "var += offset" and "var -= offset"
with the wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec() helpers respectively. They
will avoid wrap-around sanitizer instrumentation.

Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.

Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 include/linux/overflow.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 lib/overflow_kunit.c     | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
index 849a49fb496e..f4b18007fd2b 100644
--- a/include/linux/overflow.h
+++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
@@ -80,6 +80,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
 		__val;						\
 	})
 
+/**
+ * wrapping_inc() - Intentionally perform a wrapping increment
+ * @var: variable to be incremented
+ * @offset: amount to add
+ *
+ * Increments @var by @offset with wrap-around. Returns the resulting
+ * value of @var. Will not trip any wrap-around sanitizers.
+ *
+ * Returns the new value of @var.
+ */
+#define wrapping_inc(var, offset)					\
+	({								\
+		typeof(var) *__ptr = &(var);				\
+		*__ptr = wrapping_add(typeof(var), *__ptr, offset);	\
+	})
+
 /**
  * check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
  * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
@@ -109,6 +125,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
 		__val;						\
 	})
 
+/**
+ * wrapping_dec() - Intentionally perform a wrapping decrement
+ * @var: variable to be decremented
+ * @offset: amount to subtract
+ *
+ * Decrements @var by @offset with wrap-around. Returns the resulting
+ * value of @var. Will not trip any wrap-around sanitizers.
+ *
+ * Returns the new value of @var.
+ */
+#define wrapping_dec(var, offset)					\
+	({								\
+		typeof(var) *__ptr = &(var);				\
+		*__ptr = wrapping_sub(typeof(var), *__ptr, offset);	\
+	})
+
 /**
  * check_mul_overflow() - Calculate multiplication with overflow checking
  * @a: first factor
diff --git a/lib/overflow_kunit.c b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
index d3fdb906d3fe..6cadce8f8a47 100644
--- a/lib/overflow_kunit.c
+++ b/lib/overflow_kunit.c
@@ -284,6 +284,45 @@ DEFINE_TEST_ARRAY(s64) = {
 		"Unexpected wrap " #op " macro side-effect!\n");	\
 } while (0)
 
+static int global_counter;
+static void bump_counter(void)
+{
+	global_counter++;
+}
+
+static int get_index(void)
+{
+	volatile int index = 0;
+	bump_counter();
+	return index;
+}
+
+#define check_self_op(fmt, op, sym, a, b) do {				\
+	typeof(a + 0) _a = a;						\
+	typeof(b + 0) _b = b;						\
+	typeof(a + 0) _a_sym = a;					\
+	typeof(a + 0) _a_orig[1] = { a };				\
+	typeof(b + 0) _b_orig = b;					\
+	typeof(b + 0) _b_bump = b + 1;					\
+	typeof(a + 0) _r;						\
+									\
+	_a_sym sym _b;							\
+	_r = wrapping_ ## op(_a, _b);					\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, _r == _a_sym,			\
+		"expected "fmt" "#op" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt"\n",	\
+		a, b, _a_sym, _r);					\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE_MSG(test, _a == _a_sym,			\
+		"expected "fmt" "#op" "fmt" == "fmt", got "fmt"\n",	\
+		a, b, _a_sym, _a);					\
+	/* Check for internal macro side-effects. */			\
+	global_counter = 0;						\
+	wrapping_ ## op(_a_orig[get_index()], _b_orig++);		\
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, global_counter, 1,			\
+		"Unexpected wrapping_" #op " macro side-effect on arg1!\n"); \
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_MSG(test, _b_orig, _b_bump,			\
+		"Unexpected wrapping_" #op " macro side-effect on arg2!\n"); \
+} while (0)
+
 #define DEFINE_TEST_FUNC_TYPED(n, t, fmt)				\
 static void do_test_ ## n(struct kunit *test, const struct test_ ## n *p) \
 {									\
@@ -293,6 +332,10 @@ static void do_test_ ## n(struct kunit *test, const struct test_ ## n *p) \
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, sub, "-", p->a, p->b, p->diff, p->d_of);	\
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, mul, "*", p->a, p->b, p->prod, p->p_of);	\
 	check_one_op(t, fmt, mul, "*", p->b, p->a, p->prod, p->p_of);	\
+	/* wrapping_{inc,dec}() */					\
+	check_self_op(fmt, inc, +=, p->a, p->b);			\
+	check_self_op(fmt, inc, +=, p->b, p->a);			\
+	check_self_op(fmt, dec, -=, p->a, p->b);			\
 }									\
 									\
 static void n ## _overflow_test(struct kunit *test) {			\
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:24 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> This allows replacements of the idioms "var += offset" and "var -= offset"
> with the wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec() helpers respectively. They
> will avoid wrap-around sanitizer instrumentation.
>
> Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.

I would expect inc/dec to add/subtract 1. So, to me the terminology is
confusing. The list of the C/C++ operators on Wikipedia describes
above as

+= Assignment by sum
-= Assignment by difference


Hence the proposal is to have

wrapping_sum()
wrapping_diff()

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec()

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 05:31:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:24 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > This allows replacements of the idioms "var += offset" and "var -= offset"
> > with the wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec() helpers respectively. They
> > will avoid wrap-around sanitizer instrumentation.
> >
> > Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
> 
> I would expect inc/dec to add/subtract 1. So, to me the terminology is
> confusing. The list of the C/C++ operators on Wikipedia describes
> above as
> 
> += Assignment by sum
> -= Assignment by difference
> 
> 
> Hence the proposal is to have
> 
> wrapping_sum()
> wrapping_diff()

I think maybe the missing phrase is "assign", which is what makes
argument 1 "special" -- it's being changed. Perhaps:

wrapping_add_assign()
wrapping_sub_assign()

?

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] overflow: Introduce wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 08:08:14AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 05:31:54PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 5:24 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This allows replacements of the idioms "var += offset" and "var -= offset"
> > > with the wrapping_inc() and wrapping_dec() helpers respectively. They
> > > will avoid wrap-around sanitizer instrumentation.
> > >
> > > Add to the selftests to validate behavior and lack of side-effects.
> > 
> > I would expect inc/dec to add/subtract 1. So, to me the terminology is
> > confusing. The list of the C/C++ operators on Wikipedia describes
> > above as
> > 
> > += Assignment by sum
> > -= Assignment by difference
> > 
> > Hence the proposal is to have
> > 
> > wrapping_sum()
> > wrapping_diff()
> 
> I think maybe the missing phrase is "assign", which is what makes
> argument 1 "special" -- it's being changed. Perhaps:
> 
> wrapping_add_assign()
> wrapping_sub_assign()
> 
> ?

WFM!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko