From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>,
linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lm85: Bounds check to_sensor_dev_attr()->index usage
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2023 09:37:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3829a0f-ff83-651e-f78d-794565b023ec@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63deaa0b.050a0220.bf1e1.6c26@mx.google.com>
On 2/4/23 10:55, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 05:57:00PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> That line of argument would suggest that we should perform parameter checks
>> on each function entry all over the place, no matter if the range is known
>> to be valid or not. Maybe that is the way things are going, but I don't
>> like it at all. I have seen that kind of code before, in the telco space,
>> where it typically at least doubled code size and resulted in mediocre
>> performance, just because of a rule that mandated checking all parameters
>> at the beginning of each function.
>
> Well, I doubt I'll be able to change your opinion of telco code, but I
> do think robustness is not an unreasonable default state for software,
> and that GCC and Clang do a pretty good job with optimization, etc.
>
>> I assume this is just one of many many patches you plan to send to add
>> parameter checks to similar hwmon code ? I _really_ don't want to have
>> the hwmon code cluttered with such unnecessary checks.
>
> I was trying to provide complete coverage inspired by the specific
> complaint GCC had, but this would also silence the warning:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c
> index 8d33c2484755..87d2455e721f 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c
> @@ -1106,6 +1106,7 @@ static ssize_t pwm_auto_pwm_minctl_store(struct device *dev,
> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> data->autofan[nr].min_off = val;
> tmp = lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_AFAN_SPIKE1);
> + nr = clamp_t(int, nr, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(data->autofan) - 1);
> tmp &= ~(0x20 << nr);
> if (data->autofan[nr].min_off)
> tmp |= 0x20 << nr;
>
> What's happening is GCC see that "nr" is used as a shift argument, so it
> believes (not unreasonably) that this otherwise unknown value could be
> up to 32. Here we can give it the bounded range ahead of time, keeping
> it happy.
>
I'll accept that if you also add a note clarifying that this is to silence
a gcc/clang warning.
Guenter
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-05 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-27 22:37 [PATCH] lm85: Bounds check to_sensor_dev_attr()->index usage Kees Cook
2023-01-28 13:13 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-03 22:35 ` Kees Cook
2023-02-04 1:57 ` Guenter Roeck
2023-02-04 18:55 ` Kees Cook
2023-02-05 17:37 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
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=b3829a0f-ff83-651e-f78d-794565b023ec@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=jdelvare@suse.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).