Re: [Patch] MdePkg/BaseSafeIntLib: Add SafeIntLib class and instance

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

Sean, Michael,

can you please follow up on this?

To clarify, I think this is a serious bug in SafeIntLib, dependent on
what we want to use this library for. As far as I understand, SafeIntLib
intends to centralize integer manipulation / arithmetic, so that client
code need not concern itself with overflow checking and such (on the C
expression level -- it still has to check return statuses, of course).
In other words, undefined behavior related to integer arithmetic is
supposed to be prevented in various modules by moving all such
operations into SafeIntLib, and letting client code use SafeIntLib APIs.

However, for this to work, SafeIntLib itself must be 100% free of
undefined behavior. And that's not the case (unless we define additional
guarantees -- on top of ISO C -- for edk2 target architectures). Should
I file a TianoCore BZ? Or is someone already (re)auditing the library?
Or else, is my concern unjustified? Please comment.

Thanks,
Laszlo

On 02/08/18 01:45, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 02/08/18 01:32, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 12/19/17 20:36, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
>>> From: Sean Brogan <sean.brogan@microsoft.com>
>>>
>>> SafeIntLib provides helper functions to prevent integer overflow
>>> during type conversion, addition, subtraction, and multiplication.
>>
>> I clearly cannot review such a huge patch, but I've noticed something
>> and would like to ask for clarification:
>>
>>> +/**
>>> +  INT64 Subtraction
>>> +
>>> +  Performs the requested operation using the input parameters into a value
>>> +  specified by Result type and stores the converted value into the caller
>>> +  allocated output buffer specified by Result.  The caller must pass in a
>>> +  Result buffer that is at least as large as the Result type.
>>> +
>>> +  If Result is NULL, RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER is returned.
>>> +
>>> +  If the requested operation results in an overflow or an underflow condition,
>>> +  then Result is set to INT64_ERROR and RETURN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL is returned.
>>> +
>>> +  @param[in]   Minuend     A number from which another is to be subtracted.
>>> +  @param[in]   Subtrahend  A number to be subtracted from another
>>> +  @param[out]  Result      Pointer to the result of subtraction
>>> +
>>> +  @retval  RETURN_SUCCESS            Successful subtraction
>>> +  @retval  RETURN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL   Underflow
>>> +  @retval  RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER  Result is NULL
>>> +**/
>>> +RETURN_STATUS
>>> +EFIAPI
>>> +SafeInt64Sub (
>>> +  IN  INT64  Minuend,
>>> +  IN  INT64  Subtrahend,
>>> +  OUT INT64  *Result
>>> +  )
>>> +{
>>> +  RETURN_STATUS  Status;
>>> +  INT64          SignedResult;
>>> +
>>> +  if (Result == NULL) {
>>> +    return RETURN_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>>> +  }
>>> +
>>> +  SignedResult = Minuend - Subtrahend;
>>> +
>>> +  //
>>> +  // Subtracting a positive number from a positive number never overflows.
>>> +  // Subtracting a negative number from a negative number never overflows.
>>> +  // If you subtract a negative number from a positive number, you expect a positive result.
>>> +  // If you subtract a positive number from a negative number, you expect a negative result.
>>> +  // Overflow if inputs vary in sign and the output does not have the same sign as the first input.
>>> +  //
>>> +  if (((Minuend < 0) != (Subtrahend < 0)) &&
>>> +      ((Minuend < 0) != (SignedResult < 0))) {
>>> +    *Result = INT64_ERROR;
>>> +    Status = RETURN_BUFFER_TOO_SMALL;
>>> +  } else {
>>> +    *Result = SignedResult;
>>> +    Status = RETURN_SUCCESS;
>>> +  }
>>> +
>>> +  return Status;
>>> +}
>>
>> Is our goal to
>>
>> (a) catch overflows before the caller goes wrong due to them, or
>> (b) completely prevent undefined behavior from happening, even inside
>> SafeInt64Sub()?
>>
>> The above implementation may be good for (a), but it's not correct for
>> (b). The
>>
>>   SignedResult = Minuend - Subtrahend;
>>
>> subtraction invokes undefined behavior if the result cannot be
>> represented [*]; the rest of the code cannot help.
>>
>> Now if we say that such subtractions always occur according to the
>> "usual two's complement definition", on all architectures that edk2
>> targets, and we're sure that no compiler or analysis tool will flag --
>> or exploit -- the UB either, then the code is fine; meaning our choice
>> is (a).
>>
>> But, if (b) is our goal, I would replace the current error condition with:
>>
>>   (((Subtrahend > 0) && (Minuend < MIN_INT64 + Subtrahend)) ||
>>    ((Subtrahend < 0) && (Minuend > MAX_INT64 + Subtrahend)))
> 
> To clarify, I wouldn't just replace the error condition. In addition to
> that, I would remove the SignedResult helper variable (together with the
> current subtraction), and calculate & assign
> 
>   *Result = Minuend - Subtrahend;
> 
> only after the error condition fails (i.e. the subtraction is safe).
> 
> Thanks,
> Laszlo
> 
> 
>> Justification:
>>
>> * Subtrahend==0 can never cause overflow
>>
>> * Subtrahend>0 can only cause overflow at the negative end, so check
>>   that: (Minuend - Subtrahend < MIN_INT64), mathematically speaking.
>>   In order to write that down in C, add Subtrahend (a positive value)
>>   to both sides, yielding (Minuend < MIN_INT64 + Subtrahend). Here,
>>   (MIN_INT64 + Subtrahend) will never go out of range, because
>>   Subtrahend is positive, and (MIN_INT64 + MAX_INT64) is representable.
>>
>> * Subtrahend<0 can only cause overflow at the positive end, so check
>>   that: (Minuend - Subtrahend > MAX_INT64), mathematically speaking.
>>   In order to write that down in C, add Subtrahend (a negative value)
>>   to both sides, yielding (Minuend > MAX_INT64 + Subtrahend). Here,
>>   (MAX_INT64 + Subtrahend) will never go out of range, because
>>   Subtrahend is negative, and (MAX_INT64 + MIN_INT64) is representable.
>>
>> (
>>
>> [*] ISO C99 section 6.5 Expressions, p5: "If an exceptional condition
>> occurs during the evaluation of an expression (that is, if the result is
>> not mathematically defined or not in the range of representable values
>> for its type), the behavior is undefined."
>>
>> Section 6.2.5 Types, p9 only exempts unsigned integers, "A computation
>> involving unsigned operands can never overflow, because a result that
>> cannot be represented by the resulting unsigned integer type is reduced
>> modulo the number that is one greater than the largest value that can be
>> represented by the resulting type."
>>
>> Note that this is different from conversion, where the computation first
>> succeeds (= we have a value), and then the value is converted to a type
>> that causes truncation: section 6.3.1.3 Signed and unsigned integers,
>> p3: "Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be
>> represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an
>> implementation-defined signal is raised."
>>
>> In the code above, the expression (Minuend - Subtrahend) can invoke
>> undefined behavior, there is no conversion (not even as part of the
>> assignment to SignedResult).
>>
>> )
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Laszlo
>> _______________________________________________
>> edk2-devel mailing list
>> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
>> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
>