linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 48/64] drbd: Use struct

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:31:08 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Keith Packard <keithpac@...zon.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 48/64] drbd: Use struct_group() to zero algs

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:45:55PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 7/27/21 1:58 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> > neighboring fields.
> > 
> > Add a struct_group() for the algs so that memset() can correctly reason
> > about the size.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >   drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c     | 3 ++-
> >   drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h | 6 ++++--
> >   drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c | 3 ++-
> >   3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c
> > index 55234a558e98..b824679cfcb2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c
> > @@ -729,7 +729,8 @@ int drbd_send_sync_param(struct drbd_peer_device *peer_device)
> >   	cmd = apv >= 89 ? P_SYNC_PARAM89 : P_SYNC_PARAM;
> >   	/* initialize verify_alg and csums_alg */
> > -	memset(p->verify_alg, 0, 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX);
> > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(p->algs) != 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX);
> > +	memset(&p->algs, 0, sizeof(p->algs));
> >   	if (get_ldev(peer_device->device)) {
> >   		dc = rcu_dereference(peer_device->device->ldev->disk_conf);
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h
> > index dea59c92ecc1..a882b65ab5d2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h
> > +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h
> > @@ -283,8 +283,10 @@ struct p_rs_param_89 {
> >   struct p_rs_param_95 {
> >   	u32 resync_rate;
> > -	char verify_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX];
> > -	char csums_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX];
> > +	struct_group(algs,
> > +		char verify_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX];
> > +		char csums_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX];
> > +	);
> >   	u32 c_plan_ahead;
> >   	u32 c_delay_target;
> >   	u32 c_fill_target;
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
> > index 1f740e42e457..6df2539e215b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
> > @@ -3921,7 +3921,8 @@ static int receive_SyncParam(struct drbd_connection *connection, struct packet_i
> >   	/* initialize verify_alg and csums_alg */
> >   	p = pi->data;
> > -	memset(p->verify_alg, 0, 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX);
> > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(p->algs) != 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX);
> > +	memset(&p->algs, 0, sizeof(p->algs));
> 
> Using struct_group() introduces complexity. Has it been considered not to
> modify struct p_rs_param_95 and instead to use two memset() calls instead of
> one (one memset() call per member)?

I went this direction because using two memset()s (or memcpy()s in other
patches) changes the machine code. It's not much of a change, but it
seems easier to justify "no binary changes" via the use of struct_group().

If splitting the memset() is preferred, I can totally do that instead.
:)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook