Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Check for time_t overflow in event_timeout_trigger()

PATCH Superseded Steffan Karger 2 participants 7 messages Jan 2, 2018 – Mar 4, 2018

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 Check for time_t overflow in event_timeout_trigger()

As reported in trac #922, the wakeup computation in event_timeout_trigger() could overflow. Since time_t and int are signed types, that is officially undefined behvaiour.

On systems with a 64-bit signed time_t (most if not all 64-bit system), the overflow was caused by the (unnecessary) cast to "int". Removing that, changing the time of "wakeup" to time_t, and assuming that the system clock on our host system will never be set to the year 292471210579 or later, this can no longer overflow on systems with a 64-bit time_t.

For systems with a signed 32-bit time_t however, we need an additional check to prevent signed overflow (and thus undefined behaviour). Since time_t is only specified by C99 to be "an arithmetic type capable of representing times", and no TIME_MAX or TIME_MIN macros are available, checking for overflow is not trivial at all. This patch takes the practical approach, and assumes that time_t is of type "long int" (aka "long") or "long long int" (aka "long long"). POSIX requires time_t to be an "integer type", and all systems I know of use a long int or long long int. To be sure that this assumption holds, this patch uses static asserts.

So much for this "simple" overflow check.

Trac: #922

---
 src/openvpn/integer.h  | 14 ++++++++++++++
 src/openvpn/interval.c |  5 +++--
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
src/openvpn/integer.h +14 -0
index 9bb00a38..51085450 100644
@@ -77,6 +77,20 @@ constrain_int(int x, int min, int max)
     }
 }
 
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);
+}
+
 /*
  * Functions used for circular buffer index arithmetic.
  */
src/openvpn/interval.c +3 -2
index 16343865..1f067cd2 100644
@@ -51,7 +51,8 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
 
     if (et->defined)
     {
-        int wakeup = (int) et->last + et->n - local_now;
+        ASSERT(!time_t_add_overflow(et->last, et->n));
+        time_t wakeup = et->last + et->n - local_now;
         if (wakeup <= 0)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
@@ -72,7 +73,7 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
         if (tv && wakeup < tv->tv_sec)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%d/%d) etcr=%d", wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%ld/%d) etcr=%d", wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
 #endif
             tv->tv_sec = wakeup;
             tv->tv_usec = 0;
Signature · 1 line
2.14.1
#1 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 Check for time_t overflow in event_timeout_trigger()

As reported in trac #922, the wakeup computation in event_timeout_trigger() could overflow. Since time_t and int are signed types, that is officially undefined behvaiour.

On systems with a 64-bit signed time_t (most if not all 64-bit system), the overflow was caused by the (unnecessary) cast to "int". Removing that, changing the time of "wakeup" to time_t, and assuming that the system clock on our host system will never be set to the year 292471210579 or later, this can no longer overflow on systems with a 64-bit time_t.

For systems with a signed 32-bit time_t however, we need an additional check to prevent signed overflow (and thus undefined behaviour). Since time_t is only specified by C99 to be "an arithmetic type capable of representing times", and no TIME_MAX or TIME_MIN macros are available, checking for overflow is not trivial at all. This patch takes the practical approach, and assumes that time_t is of type "long int" (aka "long") or "long long int" (aka "long long"). POSIX requires time_t to be an "integer type", and all systems I know of use a long int or long long int. To be sure that this assumption holds, this patch uses static asserts.

Since I can't come up with anything useful to do if this check fails, and the input are not based on remote input, this patch just turns the undefined behaviour into a defined ASSERT().

And while we touch this function, make it obey the 80-char line length limit.

So much for this "simple" overflow check.

Trac: #922

---
v2: Fix (#if 0'd) debug print format specifier for changed type.

 src/openvpn/integer.h  | 14 ++++++++++++++
 src/openvpn/interval.c |  9 ++++++---
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
src/openvpn/integer.h +14 -0
index 9bb00a38..51085450 100644
@@ -77,6 +77,20 @@ constrain_int(int x, int min, int max)
     }
 }
 
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);
+}
+
 /*
  * Functions used for circular buffer index arithmetic.
  */
src/openvpn/interval.c +6 -3
index 16343865..909e3fcd 100644
@@ -51,11 +51,13 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
 
     if (et->defined)
     {
-        int wakeup = (int) et->last + et->n - local_now;
+        ASSERT(!time_t_add_overflow(et->last, et->n));
+        time_t wakeup = et->last + et->n - local_now;
         if (wakeup <= 0)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n,
+                 et_const_retry);
 #endif
             if (et_const_retry < 0)
             {
@@ -72,7 +74,8 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
         if (tv && wakeup < tv->tv_sec)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%d/%d) etcr=%d", wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%ld/%d) etcr=%d",
+                 (long) wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
 #endif
             tv->tv_sec = wakeup;
             tv->tv_usec = 0;
Signature · 1 line
2.14.1
#2 lore raw

Hi,

This just caught my fancy :)

Quoted 50 lines · Steffan Karger

As reported in trac #922, the wakeup computation in event_timeout_trigger() could overflow. Since time_t and int are signed types, that is officially undefined behvaiour.

On systems with a 64-bit signed time_t (most if not all 64-bit system), the overflow was caused by the (unnecessary) cast to "int". Removing that, changing the time of "wakeup" to time_t, and assuming that the system clock on our host system will never be set to the year 292471210579 or later, this can no longer overflow on systems with a 64-bit time_t.

For systems with a signed 32-bit time_t however, we need an additional check to prevent signed overflow (and thus undefined behaviour). Since time_t is only specified by C99 to be "an arithmetic type capable of representing times", and no TIME_MAX or TIME_MIN macros are available, checking for overflow is not trivial at all. This patch takes the practical approach, and assumes that time_t is of type "long int" (aka "long") or "long long int" (aka "long long"). POSIX requires time_t to be an "integer type", and all systems I know of use a long int or long long int. To be sure that this assumption holds, this patch uses static asserts.

Since I can't come up with anything useful to do if this check fails, and the input are not based on remote input, this patch just turns the undefined behaviour into a defined ASSERT().

And while we touch this function, make it obey the 80-char line length limit.

So much for this "simple" overflow check.

Trac: #922

---
v2: Fix (#if 0'd) debug print format specifier for changed type.

 src/openvpn/integer.h  | 14 ++++++++++++++
 src/openvpn/interval.c |  9 ++++++---
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
src/openvpn/integer.h +2 -0
index 9bb00a38..51085450 100644
@@ -77,6 +77,20 @@ constrain_int(int x, int min, int max)
     }
 }
 
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool

src/openvpn/integer.h constrain_int(int x, int min, int max) · line 91

Quoted 10 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +10 -0
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);

Interesting. But I think this can be simplified much. Addition of identically sized integers a and b overflows if and only if

((a > 0 && a + b < b) || (a < 0 && a + b > b))

As overflow is possible only when both have same sign it can also be written as

((a > 0 && a + b < a) || (a < 0 && a + b > a))

So the TIME_MAX and TIME_MIN may be eliminated and that means no need to check signed/unsigned or long/long-long.

Am I missing something?

Quoted 26 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +2 -0
+}
+
 /*
  * Functions used for circular buffer index arithmetic.
  */
src/openvpn/interval.c +4 -2
index 16343865..909e3fcd 100644
@@ -51,11 +51,13 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
 
     if (et->defined)
     {
-        int wakeup = (int) et->last + et->n - local_now;
+        ASSERT(!time_t_add_overflow(et->last, et->n));
+        time_t wakeup = et->last + et->n - local_now;
         if (wakeup <= 0)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n,
+                 et_const_retry);
 #endif
             if (et_const_retry < 0)
             {

src/openvpn/interval.c event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,

Quoted 10 lines
src/openvpn/interval.c +2 -2
@@ -72,7 +74,8 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
         if (tv && wakeup < tv->tv_sec)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%d/%d) etcr=%d", wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%ld/%d) etcr=%d",
+                 (long) wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
 #endif
             tv->tv_sec = wakeup;
             tv->tv_usec = 0;
--

Selva

#3 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 18 lines · Selva Nair

src/openvpn/integer.h constrain_int(int x, int min, int max) · line 91

Quoted 12 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +12 -0
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);

Interesting. But I think this can be simplified much. Addition of identically sized integers a and b overflows if and only if

((a > 0 && a + b < b) || (a < 0 && a + b > b))

Quoted 8 lines

As overflow is possible only when both have same sign it can also be written as

((a > 0 && a + b < a) || (a < 0 && a + b > a))

So the TIME_MAX and TIME_MIN may be eliminated and that means no need to check signed/unsigned or long/long-long.

Am I missing something?

Hm... replying to self: I suppose the worry is related to unsigned int arithmetic overflow being undefined behaviour in C. So potentially a compiler can treat those statements as always true if it wishes..

Well, excuse the noise I caused then.

Selva

#4 lore raw

Hi

Quoted 26 lines · Selva Nair
Quoted 25 lines · Selva Nair

src/openvpn/integer.h constrain_int(int x, int min, int max) · line 91

Quoted 12 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +12 -0
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);

Interesting. But I think this can be simplified much. Addition of identically sized integers a and b overflows if and only if

((a > 0 && a + b < b) || (a < 0 && a + b > b))

As overflow is possible only when both have same sign it can also be written as

((a > 0 && a + b < a) || (a < 0 && a + b > a))

So the TIME_MAX and TIME_MIN may be eliminated and that means no need to check signed/unsigned or long/long-long.

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line

Am I missing something?

Hm... replying to self: I suppose the worry is related to unsigned int arithmetic overflow being undefined behaviour in C. So potentially a compiler can treat those statements as always true if it wishes..

Well, excuse the noise I caused then.

Yeah, at least, *signed* integer overflow is undefined, and time_t is (usually) a signed type.

-Steffan

#5 lore raw
In reply to Steffan Karger

Hi,

Quoted 52 lines · Steffan Karger

As reported in trac #922, the wakeup computation in event_timeout_trigger() could overflow. Since time_t and int are signed types, that is officially undefined behvaiour.

On systems with a 64-bit signed time_t (most if not all 64-bit system), the overflow was caused by the (unnecessary) cast to "int". Removing that, changing the time of "wakeup" to time_t, and assuming that the system clock on our host system will never be set to the year 292471210579 or later, this can no longer overflow on systems with a 64-bit time_t.

For systems with a signed 32-bit time_t however, we need an additional check to prevent signed overflow (and thus undefined behaviour). Since time_t is only specified by C99 to be "an arithmetic type capable of representing times", and no TIME_MAX or TIME_MIN macros are available, checking for overflow is not trivial at all. This patch takes the practical approach, and assumes that time_t is of type "long int" (aka "long") or "long long int" (aka "long long"). POSIX requires time_t to be an "integer type", and all systems I know of use a long int or long long int. To be sure that this assumption holds, this patch uses static asserts.

Since I can't come up with anything useful to do if this check fails, and the input are not based on remote input, this patch just turns the undefined behaviour into a defined ASSERT().

And while we touch this function, make it obey the 80-char line length limit.

So much for this "simple" overflow check.

Trac: #922

---
v2: Fix (#if 0'd) debug print format specifier for changed type.

 src/openvpn/integer.h  | 14 ++++++++++++++
 src/openvpn/interval.c |  9 ++++++---
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
src/openvpn/integer.h +4 -0
index 9bb00a38..51085450 100644
@@ -77,6 +77,20 @@ constrain_int(int x, int min, int max)
     }
 }
 
+/** Return true if the addition of a and b would overflow. */
+static inline bool
+time_t_add_overflow(time_t a, time_t b) {
+    static_assert(((time_t) -1) < 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is signed");

src/openvpn/integer.h constrain_int(int x, int min, int max) · line 93

Quoted 10 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +10 -0
+    static_assert(((time_t) .9) == 0, "OpenVPN assumes time_t is integer type");
+    static_assert(sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) || sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long long),
+        "OpenVPN assumes that time_t is of type long int or long long int");
+    static const time_t TIME_MAX = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MAX : LLONG_MAX;
+    static const time_t TIME_MIN = sizeof(time_t) == sizeof(long) ?
+            LONG_MIN : LLONG_MIN;
+    return (a > 0 && b > TIME_MAX - a) || (a < 0 && b < TIME_MIN - a);
+}
+

Finally I've to agree that jumping through all those hoops is necessary to check overflow in time_t type. Good to note that its still very efficient as all except the last line are evaluated at compile time.

That said, in this particular case, there is a better way out:

Quoted 8 lines
src/openvpn/integer.h +0 -0
 /*
  * Functions used for circular buffer index arithmetic.
  */
src/openvpn/interval.c +0 -0
index 16343865..909e3fcd 100644

src/openvpn/interval.c event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et, · line 55

Quoted 6 lines
src/openvpn/interval.c +2 -1
@@ -51,11 +51,13 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
 
     if (et->defined)
     {
-        int wakeup = (int) et->last + et->n - local_now;
+        ASSERT(!time_t_add_overflow(et->last, et->n));
+        time_t wakeup = et->last + et->n - local_now;

We can avoid all overflow and eliminate the check and the ASSERT by writing it as

time_t wakeup = (et->last - local_now) + et->n; // parens added for clarity

For the first subtraction to overflow, last and now have to differ by

Quoted 1 line

INT_MAX (for 32 bit time_t), not something we should worry about

(can't happen in normal operation).
Further, the term in brackets is always negative (as now >= last), while et->n is positive and < INT_MAX by construction. So the final addition also cannot overflow. All assuming that 32 bit "now" and "last" are not used beyond 2037.

That would take care of this particular overflow concern.

Quoted 10 lines
         if (wakeup <= 0)
         {

#if INTERVAL_DEBUG

src/openvpn/interval.c +2 -1
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_trigger (%d) etcr=%d", et->n,
+                 et_const_retry);
 #endif
             if (et_const_retry < 0)
             {

src/openvpn/interval.c event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,

Quoted 10 lines
src/openvpn/interval.c +2 -2
@@ -72,7 +74,8 @@ event_timeout_trigger(struct event_timeout *et,
         if (tv && wakeup < tv->tv_sec)
         {
 #if INTERVAL_DEBUG
-            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%d/%d) etcr=%d", wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
+            dmsg(D_INTERVAL, "EVENT event_timeout_wakeup (%ld/%d) etcr=%d",
+                 (long) wakeup, et->n, et_const_retry);
 #endif
             tv->tv_sec = wakeup;
             tv->tv_usec = 0;
--

Selva

P.S.

If and when we do need to check for overflow, it may be useful to define the check to match the signature of builtins like

bool __builtin_add_overflow (type1 a, type2 b, type3 *res)

          [gcc 5+ and clang 7+].

That would allow drop-in replacement when such builtins are more widely available.

#6 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 6 lines · Selva Nair

We can avoid all overflow and eliminate the check and the ASSERT by writing it as

time_t wakeup = (et->last - local_now) + et->n; // parens added for clarity

For the first subtraction to overflow, last and now have to differ by

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line

INT_MAX (for 32 bit time_t), not something we should worry about

(can't happen in normal operation).
Further, the term in brackets is always negative (as now >= last), while et->n is positive and < INT_MAX by construction. So the final addition also cannot overflow. All assuming that 32 bit "now" and "last" are not used beyond 2037.

That would take care of this particular overflow concern.

Looking more closely at the "now" handling, I see that it indeed can not go back (our notion of time can, but that is managed through now_adj, not by setting now back).

So your approach is much simpler and better. Since that is your solution, do mind sending a patch? I'll then do the review-and-ack.

-Steffan