Re: [PATCH] ubsan: Implement __ubsan_handle_alignment_assumption

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:06:34PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 01:53:30PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:37 PM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > if real_ptr is an unsigned long, do we want to use `__ffs(real_ptr) +
> > > > 1` here rather than ffs which takes an int?  It seems the kernel is
> > > > missing a definition of ffsl. :(
> > >
> > > Why the + 1? I think if we use __ffs (which it seems like we should), I
> > > think that needs to become
> > 
> > This came up recently in an internal code review; ffs and __ffs differ
> > in output by one.  See also the definition of ffs for alpha in
> > arch/alpha/include/asm/bitops.h.
> 
> Interesting, thanks for bringing it up! Looks like ffs returns 1-32 and
> __ffs returns 0-31. I think that we want __ffs here because we are
> shifting (1UL << 32 overflows on 32-bit architectures) and the code in
> LLVM appears to agree. LeastSignificantSetBitIndex evaluates to
> __builtin_ctzl, which is the asm-generic implementation of __ffs.

Sounds good. With __ffs, consider your v2:

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Kees Cook