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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:54:58 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] treewide: uapi: Replace zero-length arrays with
 flexible-array members

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 09:40:52PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 08:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > Fyi, this breaks BPF CI:
> > 
> >
> > 
> >   [...]
> >   progs/map_ptr_kern.c:314:26: error: field 'trie_key' with variable sized type 'struct bpf_lpm_trie_key' not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
> >           struct bpf_lpm_trie_key trie_key;
> >                                   ^

The issue here seems to be a collision between "unknown array size"
and known sizes:

struct bpf_lpm_trie_key {
        __u32   prefixlen;      /* up to 32 for AF_INET, 128 for AF_INET6 */
        __u8    data[0];        /* Arbitrary size */

struct lpm_key {
	struct bpf_lpm_trie_key trie_key;
	__u32 data;

This is treating trie_key as a header, which it's not: it's a complete
structure. :)


struct lpm_key {
        __u32 prefixlen;
        __u32 data;

I don't see anything else trying to include bpf_lpm_trie_key.

> This will break the rdma-core userspace as well, with a similar
> error:
> /usr/bin/clang-13 -DVERBS_DEBUG -Dibverbs_EXPORTS -Iinclude -I/usr/include/libnl3 -I/usr/include/drm -g -O2 -fdebug-prefix-map=/__w/1/s=. -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wwrite-strings -Wformat=2 -Wcast-function-type -Wformat-nonliteral -Wdate-time -Wnested-externs -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Werror -Wredundant-decls -g -fPIC   -std=gnu11 -MD -MT libibverbs/CMakeFiles/ibverbs.dir/cmd_flow.c.o -MF libibverbs/CMakeFiles/ibverbs.dir/cmd_flow.c.o.d -o libibverbs/CMakeFiles/ibverbs.dir/cmd_flow.c.o   -c ../libibverbs/cmd_flow.c
> In file included from ../libibverbs/cmd_flow.c:33:
> In file included from include/infiniband/cmd_write.h:36:
> In file included from include/infiniband/cmd_ioctl.h:41:
> In file included from include/infiniband/verbs.h:48:
> In file included from include/infiniband/verbs_api.h:66:
> In file included from include/infiniband/ib_user_ioctl_verbs.h:38:
> include/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h:436:34: error: field 'base' with variable sized type 'struct ib_uverbs_create_cq_resp' not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
>         struct ib_uverbs_create_cq_resp base;
>                                         ^
> include/rdma/ib_user_verbs.h:644:34: error: field 'base' with variable sized type 'struct ib_uverbs_create_qp_resp' not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU extension [-Werror,-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
>         struct ib_uverbs_create_qp_resp base;

This looks very similar, a struct of unknown size is being treated as a
header struct:

struct ib_uverbs_create_cq_resp {
        __u32 cq_handle;
        __u32 cqe;
        __aligned_u64 driver_data[0];

struct ib_uverbs_ex_create_cq_resp {
        struct ib_uverbs_create_cq_resp base;
        __u32 comp_mask;
        __u32 response_length;

And it only gets used here:

                                             struct ib_uverbs_create_cq,
                                             struct ib_uverbs_create_cq_resp),

which must also be assuming it's a header. So probably better to just
drop the driver_data field? I don't see anything using it (that I can
find) besides as a sanity-check that the field exists and is at the end
of the struct.

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists