Re: [PATCH 03/82] overflow: Introduce add_wrap()

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:26:38PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Provide a helper that will perform wrapping addition without tripping
> the arithmetic wrap-around sanitizers.
> 
> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/overflow.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h
> index ac088f73e0fd..30779905a77a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/overflow.h
> +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h
> @@ -124,6 +124,22 @@ static inline bool __must_check __must_check_overflow(bool overflow)
>  		check_add_overflow(a, b, &__result);\
>  	}))
>  
> +/**
> + * add_wrap() - Intentionally perform a wrapping addition
> + * @a: first addend
> + * @b: second addend
> + *
> + * Return the potentially wrapped-around addition without
> + * tripping any overflow sanitizers that may be enabled.
> + */
> +#define add_wrap(a, b)					\
> +	({						\
> +		typeof(a) __sum;			\
> +		if (check_add_overflow(a, b, &__sum))	\
> +			/* do nothing */;		\
> +		__sum;					\
> +	})

It's really difficult to see the semicolon for the empty statement here; could
we make that part:

		if ((check_add_overflow(a, b, &__sum)) {	\
			/* do nothing */			\
		}						\

.. to be a little clearer (and less at risk of breakage in a refactoring)?

I realise coding style says not to use braces for a single statement, but IMO
it's far clearer in this instance with the braces.

Mark.

> +
>  /**
>   * check_sub_overflow() - Calculate subtraction with overflow checking
>   * @a: minuend; value to subtract from
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
>