Re: [V2][PATCH 0/3] New attribute "counted_by" to annotate bounds for C99 FAM(PR108896)

[Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>]

> On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure this has been discussed before, but seeing that you
> test for a specific formula, let me point out the following:
> 
> There at least three different size expression which could
> make sense. Consider
> 
> short foo { int a; short b; char t[]; }; 
> 
> Most people seem to use
> 
> sizeof(struct foo) + N * sizeof(foo->t);
> 
> which for N == 3 yields 11 bytes on x86-64 because the formula
> adds the padding of the original struct. There is an example
> in the  C standard that uses this formula.
> 
> 
> But he minimum size of an object which stores N elements is
> 
> max(sizeof (struct s), offsetof(struct s, t[n]))
> 
> which is 9 bytes. 
> 
> This is what clang uses for statically allocated objects with
> initialization, while GCC uses the rule above (11 bytes). But 
> bdos / bos  then returns the smaller size of 9 which is a bit
> confusing.

As I checked the algorithm for bos in GCC,  it uses a similar formula as the following to compute the object size:

offset(struct foo, t[0]) + N * sizeof(*foo->t);

Which seems correct to me.  (Therefore bos returns 9 for this example).
> 
> 
> https://godbolt.org/z/K1hvaK1ns
> 
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/62929
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109956
> 
> 
> Then there is also the size of a similar array where the FAM
> is replaced with an array of static size:
> 
> struct foo { int a; short b; char t[3]; }; 
> 
> This would make the most sense to me, but it has 12 bytes
> because the padding is according to the usual alignment
> rules.

My understanding is, since a structure with FAM cannot be an element of an array, 
 the tailing padding might not be necessary?

Qing

> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> Am Montag, dem 07.08.2023 um 09:16 -0700 schrieb Kees Cook:
>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 07:44:28PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote:
>>> This is the 2nd version of the patch, per our discussion based on the
>>> review comments for the 1st version, the major changes in this version
>>> are:
>> 
>> Thanks for the update!
>> 
>>> 
>>> 1. change the name "element_count" to "counted_by";
>>> 2. change the parameter for the attribute from a STRING to an
>>> Identifier;
>>> 3. Add logic and testing cases to handle anonymous structure/unions;
>>> 4. Clarify documentation to permit the situation when the allocation
>>> size is larger than what's specified by "counted_by", at the same time,
>>> it's user's error if allocation size is smaller than what's specified by
>>> "counted_by";
>>> 5. Add a complete testing case for using counted_by attribute in
>>> __builtin_dynamic_object_size when there is mismatch between the
>>> allocation size and the value of "counted_by", the expecting behavior
>>> for each case and the explanation on why in the comments. 
>> 
>> All the "normal" test cases I have are passing; this is wonderful! :)
>> 
>> I'm still seeing unexpected situations when I've intentionally set
>> counted_by to be smaller than alloc_size, but I assume it's due to not
>> yet having the patch you mention below.
>> 
>>> As discussed, I plan to add two more separate patch sets after this initial
>>> patch set is approved and committed.
>>> 
>>> set 1. A new warning option and a new sanitizer option for the user error
>>>        when the allocation size is smaller than the value of "counted_by".
>>> set 2. An improvement to __builtin_dynamic_object_size  for the following
>>>        case:
>>> 
>>> struct A
>>> {
>>> size_t foo;
>>> int array[] __attribute__((counted_by (foo)));
>>> };
>>> 
>>> extern struct fix * alloc_buf ();
>>> 
>>> int main ()
>>> {
>>> struct fix *p = alloc_buf ();
>>> __builtin_object_size(p->array, 0) == sizeof(struct A) + p->foo * sizeof(int);
>>>   /* with the current algorithm, it’s UNKNOWN */ 
>>> __builtin_object_size(p->array, 2) == sizeof(struct A) + p->foo * sizeof(int);
>>>   /* with the current algorithm, it’s UNKNOWN */
>>> }
>> 
>> Should the above be bdos instead of bos?
>> 
>>> Bootstrapped and regression tested on both aarch64 and X86, no issue.
>> 
>> I've updated the Linux kernel's macros for the name change and done
>> build tests with my first pass at "easy" cases for adding counted_by:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/commit/?h=devel/counted_by&id=adc5b3cb48a049563dc673f348eab7b6beba8a9b
>> 
>> Everything is working as expected. :)
>> 
>> -Kees
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Martin Uecker
> Graz University of Technology
> Institute of Biomedical Imaging