On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:31:04PM +0100, Eugenio Perez Martin wrote:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:42 AM Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 unsigned wrap-around addition test to use
check_add_overflow(), retaining the result for later usage (which removes
the redundant open-coded addition). This paves the way to enabling the
unsigned wrap-around sanitizer[2] 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: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 drivers/vhost/vringh.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
index 7b8fd977f71c..07442f0a52bd 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vringh.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vringh.c

@@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ static inline bool range_check(struct vringh *vrh, u64 addr, size_t *len,
                               bool (*getrange)(struct vringh *,
                                                u64, struct vringh_range *))
 {
+       u64 sum;

I understand this is part of a bulk change so little time to think
about names :). But what about "end" or similar?

Either way,
Acked-by: Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@redhat.com>

Thanks! Yeah, you are not alone in suggesting "end" in a several of
these patches. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook