lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] rust: time: Use wrapping_sub() for Ktime::sub()
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 1:08 AM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Currently since Rust code is compiled with "-Coverflow-checks=y", so a
> normal substraction may be compiled as an overflow checking and panic
> if overflow happens:
>
> subq %rsi, %rdi
> jo .LBB0_2
> movq %rdi, %rax
> retq
> .LBB0_2:
> pushq %rax
> leaq str.0(%rip), %rdi
> leaq .L__unnamed_1(%rip), %rdx
> movl $33, %esi
> callq *core::panicking::panic::h59297120e85ea178@GOTPCREL(%rip)
>
> although overflow detection is nice to have, however this makes
> `Ktime::sub()` behave differently than `ktime_sub()`, moreover it's not
> clear that the overflow checking is helpful, since for example, the
> current binder usage[1] doesn't have the checking.

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Any code that triggers an
overflow in Ktime::sub is wrong, and anyone who enables
CONFIG_RUST_OVERFLOW_CHECKS does so because they want such bugs to be
caught. You may have been able to find one example of a subtraction
that doesn't have a risk of overflow, but overflow bugs really do
happen in the real world. I have seen real examples of bugs in Rust
code, where overflow checks were the reason the bug was not a security
vulnerability.

> Therefore make `Ktime::sub()` have the same semantics as `ktime_sub()`:
> overflow behaves like 2s-complement wrapping sub.

From Miguel's reply, it sounds like 2s-complement wrapping is not even
the semantics of ktime_sub. The semantics are just UB.

Alice

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:37    [W:0.186 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site