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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:47:29 -0400 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/mlx5: Use memset_after() to zero struct mlx5_ib_mr On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:54:55PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:31:38PM -0800, 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() to zero the end of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should > > be initialized. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 5 ++--- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h > > index e636e954f6bf..af94c9fe8753 100644 > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h > > @@ -665,8 +665,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr { > > /* User MR data */ > > struct mlx5_cache_ent *cache_ent; > > struct ib_umem *umem; > > - > > - /* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */ > > + /* Everything after umem is zero'd when the MR is allocated */ > > union { > > /* Used only while the MR is in the cache */ > > struct { > > @@ -718,7 +717,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr { > > /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */ > > static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr) > > { > > - memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out)); > > + memset_after(mr, 0, umem); > > I think that it is not equivalent change and you need "memset_after(mr, 0, cache_ent);" > to clear umem pointer too. Kees? Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists