Re: [RFC patch 1/6] random: Simplify API for random address requests

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:44:27PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > To date, all callers of randomize_range() have set the length to 0, and
>> > check for a zero return value.  For the current callers, the only way
>> > to get zero returned is if end <= start.  Since they are all adding a
>> > constant to the start address, this is unnecessary.
>> >
>> > We can remove a bunch of needless checks by simplifying the API to do
>> > just what everyone wants, return an address between [start, start +
>> > range].
>> >
>> > While we're here, s/get_random_int/get_random_long/.  No current call
>> > site is adversely affected by get_random_int(), since all current range
>> > requests are < MAX_UINT.  However, we should match caller expectations
>> > to avoid coming up short (ha!) in the future.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> >  drivers/char/random.c  | 17 ++++-------------
>> >  include/linux/random.h |  2 +-
>> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c
>> > index 0158d3bff7e5..1251cb2cbab2 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/char/random.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/char/random.c
>> > @@ -1822,22 +1822,13 @@ unsigned long get_random_long(void)
>> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_random_long);
>> >
>> >  /*
>> > - * randomize_range() returns a start address such that
>> > - *
>> > - *    [...... <range> .....]
>> > - *  start                  end
>> > - *
>> > - * a <range> with size "len" starting at the return value is inside in the
>> > - * area defined by [start, end], but is otherwise randomized.
>> > + * randomize_addr() returns a page aligned address within [start, start +
>> > + * range]
>> >   */
>> >  unsigned long
>> > -randomize_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end, unsigned long len)
>> > +randomize_addr(unsigned long start, unsigned long range)
>>
>> Also, this series isn't bisectable since randomize_range gets removed
>> here before the callers are updated. Perhaps add a macro that calls
>> randomize_addr with a BUG_ON for len != 0? (And then remove it in the
>> last patch?)
>
> No, I was thinking just add randomize_addr() in the first patch, convert
> all the callers, then the last patch would remove randomize_range().
>
> That way the last patch can be a cleanup in a later merge window if
> needed.

That works too! :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS & Brillo Security