On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:57:28AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 02:10:57PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > The check_*_overflow() helpers will return results with potentially > > wrapped-around values. These values have always been checked by the > > selftests, so avoid the confusing language in the kern-doc. The idea of > > "safe for use" was relative to the expectation of whether or not the > > caller wants a wrapped value -- the calculation itself will always follow > > arithmetic wrapping rules. > > > > Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > --- > > include/linux/overflow.h | 18 ++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h > > index 7b5cf4a5cd19..4e741ebb8005 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/overflow.h > > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h > > @@ -57,11 +57,9 @@ static inline bool __must_check > > __must_check_overflow(bool overflow) > > * @b: second addend > > * @d: pointer to store sum > > * > > - * Returns 0 on success. > > + * Returns 0 on success, 1 on wrap-around. > > Sorry for the last minute bikeshedding, but could we clarify 'success' here? > e.g. I think it'd be clearer to say: > > Returns true on wrap-around, false otherwise. > > Note that also uses true/false since these all return bool (as do the > underlying __builtin_*_overflow() functions).
Yeah, that's a good point. I'll update this. > > * > > - * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, but is not considered > > - * "safe for use" on a non-zero return value, which indicates that the > > - * sum has overflowed or been truncated. > > + * *@d holds the results of the attempted addition, which may wrap-around. > > How about: > > @d holds the results of the attempted addition, regardless of whether > wrap-around occurred. > > ... and likewise for the others below? Yeah, that's more clear. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook
