Re: [PATCH v3] ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer

Kees Cook
2024-02-06T11:09:18Z

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:10:26PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 13:59, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 01:54:24PM +0100, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/5/24 10:37, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > include/linux/compiler_types.h | 9 ++++-
> > > > lib/Kconfig.ubsan | 14 +++++++
> > > > lib/test_ubsan.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > > lib/ubsan.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > lib/ubsan.h | 4 ++
> > > > scripts/Makefile.lib | 3 ++
> > > > scripts/Makefile.ubsan | 3 ++
> > > > 7 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/compiler_types.h b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > > > index 6f1ca49306d2..ee9d272008a5 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/compiler_types.h
> > > > @@ -282,11 +282,18 @@ struct ftrace_likely_data {
> > > > #define __no_sanitize_or_inline __always_inline
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > +/* Do not trap wrapping arithmetic within an annotated function. */
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP
> > > > +# define __signed_wrap __attribute__((no_sanitize("signed-integer-overflow")))
> > > > +#else
> > > > +# define __signed_wrap
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > /* Section for code which can't be instrumented at all */
> > > > #define __noinstr_section(section) \
> > > > noinline notrace __attribute((__section__(section))) \
> > > > __no_kcsan __no_sanitize_address __no_profile __no_sanitize_coverage \
> > > > - __no_sanitize_memory
> > > > + __no_sanitize_memory __signed_wrap
> > > >
> > >
> > > Given this disables all kinds of code instrumentations,
> > > shouldn't we just add __no_sanitize_undefined here?
> >
> > Yeah, that's a very good point.
> >
> > > I suspect that ubsan's instrumentation usually doesn't cause problems
> > > because it calls __ubsan_* functions with all heavy stuff (printk, locks etc)
> > > only if code has an UB. So the answer to the question above depends on
> > > whether we want to ignore UBs in "noinstr" code or to get some weird side effect,
> > > possibly without proper UBSAN report in dmesg.
> >
> > I think my preference would be to fail safe (i.e. leave in the
> > instrumentation), but the intent of noinstr is pretty clear. :P I wonder
> > if, instead, we could adjust objtool to yell about cases where calls are
> > made in noinstr functions (like it does for UACCESS)... maybe it already
> > does?
>
> It already does, see CONFIG_NOINSTR_VALIDATION (yes by default on x86).

This is actually a reason to not include the ubsan disabling in
__noinstr_section just to see what ends up in there so we can fix it
immediately....

--
Kees Cook