[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202108020922.FE8A35C854@keescook>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:23:24 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Shai Malin <smalin@...vell.com>
Cc: "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-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
"clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com"
<clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
GR-everest-linux-l2 <GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com>,
Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 42/64] net: qede: Use memset_after() for counters
On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 02:29:28PM +0000, Shai Malin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2021 at 07:07:00PM -0300, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:58:33PM -0700, 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.
> > >
> > > Use memset_after() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing
> > > beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point
> > > of zeroing through the end of the struct.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > > ---
> > > The old code seems to be doing the wrong thing: starting from not the
> > > first member, but sized for the whole struct. Which is correct?
> >
> > Quick ping on this question.
> >
> > The old code seems to be doing the wrong thing: it starts from the second
> > member and writes beyond int_info, clobbering qede_lock:
>
> Thanks for highlighting the problem, but actually, the memset is redundant.
> We will remove it so the change will not be needed.
>
> >
> > struct qede_dev {
> > ...
> > struct qed_int_info int_info;
> >
> > /* Smaller private variant of the RTNL lock */
> > struct mutex qede_lock;
> > ...
> >
> >
> > struct qed_int_info {
> > struct msix_entry *msix;
> > u8 msix_cnt;
> >
> > /* This should be updated by the protocol driver */
> > u8 used_cnt;
> > };
> >
> > Should this also clear the "msix" member, or should this not write
> > beyond int_info? This patch does the latter.
>
> It should clear only the msix_cnt, no need to clear the entire
> qed_int_info structure.
Should used_cnt be cleared too? It is currently. Better yet, what patch
do you suggest I replace this proposed one with? :)
Thanks for looking at this!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists