|
Implement a robust overflows_type() macro to test if a variable or
constant value would overflow another variable or type. This can be
used as a constant expression for static_assert() (which requires a
constant expression[1][2]) when used on constant values. This must be
constructed manually, since __builtin_add_overflow() does not produce
a constant expression[3].
Additionally adds castable_to_type(), similar to __same_type(), but for
checking if a constant value would overflow if cast to a given type.
Add unit tests for overflows_type(), __same_type(), and castable_to_type()
to the existing KUnit "overflow" test:
[16:03:33] ================== overflow (21 subtests) ==================
...
[16:03:33] [PASSED] overflows_type_test
[16:03:33] [PASSED] same_type_test
[16:03:33] [PASSED] castable_to_type_test
[16:03:33] ==================== [PASSED] overflow =====================
[16:03:33] ============================================================
[16:03:33] Testing complete. Ran 21 tests: passed: 21
[16:03:33] Elapsed time: 24.022s total, 0.002s configuring, 22.598s building, 0.767s running
[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/_Static_assert
[2] C11 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:2011): 6.7.10 Static assertions
[3] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Integer-Overflow-Builtins.html
6.56 Built-in Functions to Perform Arithmetic with Overflow Checking
Built-in Function: bool __builtin_add_overflow (type1 a, type2 b,
Cc: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc: Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev
Co-developed-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221024201125.1416422-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com
|
|
An idea for extending uABI inspired by Vulkan's extension chains.
Instead of expanding the data struct for each ioctl every time we need
to add a new feature, define an extension chain instead. As we add
optional interfaces to control the ioctl, we define a new extension
struct that can be linked into the ioctl data only when required by the
user. The key advantage being able to ignore large control structs for
optional interfaces/extensions, while being able to process them in a
consistent manner.
In comparison to other extensible ioctls, the key difference is the
use of a linked chain of extension structs vs an array of tagged
pointers. For example,
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_chunk {
__u32 chunk_id;
__u32 length_dw;
__u64 chunk_data;
};
struct drm_amdgpu_cs_in {
__u32 ctx_id;
__u32 bo_list_handle;
__u32 num_chunks;
__u32 _pad;
__u64 chunks;
};
allows userspace to pass in array of pointers to extension structs, but
must therefore keep constructing that array along side the command stream.
In dynamic situations like that, a linked list is preferred and does not
similar from extra cache line misses as the extension structs themselves
must still be loaded separate to the chunks array.
v2: Apply the tail call optimisation directly to nip the worry of stack
overflow in the bud.
v3: Defend against recursion.
v4: Fixup local types to match new uabi
Opens:
- do we include the result as an out-field in each chain?
struct i915_user_extension {
__u64 next_extension;
__u64 name;
__s32 result;
__u32 mbz; /* reserved for future use */
};
* Undecided, so provision some room for future expansion.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190322092325.5883-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
|
