[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZSkpU0vdrCTfTxuZ@bfoster>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:26:11 -0400
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Refactor bkey_i to use a flexible array
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 04:56:12PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> The memcpy() in bch2_bkey_append_ptr() is operating on an embedded
> fake flexible array. Instead, make it explicit, and convert the memcpy
> to target the flexible array instead. Fixes the W=1 warning seen for
> -Wstringop-overflow:
>
> In file included from include/linux/string.h:254,
> from include/linux/bitmap.h:11,
> from include/linux/cpumask.h:12,
> from include/linux/smp.h:13,
> from include/linux/lockdep.h:14,
> from include/linux/radix-tree.h:14,
> from include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h:6,
> from fs/bcachefs/bcachefs.h:182:
> fs/bcachefs/extents.c: In function 'bch2_bkey_append_ptr':
> include/linux/fortify-string.h:57:33: warning: writing 8 bytes into a region of size 0 [-Wstringop-overflow=]
> 57 | #define __underlying_memcpy __builtin_memcpy
> | ^
> include/linux/fortify-string.h:648:9: note: in expansion of macro '__underlying_memcpy'
> 648 | __underlying_##op(p, q, __fortify_size); \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/fortify-string.h:693:26: note: in expansion of macro '__fortify_memcpy_chk'
> 693 | #define memcpy(p, q, s) __fortify_memcpy_chk(p, q, s, \
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> fs/bcachefs/extents.c:235:17: note: in expansion of macro 'memcpy'
> 235 | memcpy((void *) &k->v + bkey_val_bytes(&k->k),
> | ^~~~~~
> fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h:287:33: note: destination object 'v' of size 0
> 287 | struct bch_val v;
> | ^
>
> Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
> Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
> Cc: linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309192314.VBsjiIm5-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> ---
> fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h | 5 ++++-
> fs/bcachefs/extents.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h b/fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h
> index f0d130440baa..f5e8cb43697b 100644
> --- a/fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h
> +++ b/fs/bcachefs/bcachefs_format.h
> @@ -300,7 +300,10 @@ struct bkey_i {
> __u64 _data[0];
>
> struct bkey k;
> - struct bch_val v;
> + union {
> + struct bch_val v;
> + DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(__u8, bytes);
> + };
> };
Hi Kees,
I'm curious if this is something that could be buried in bch_val given
it's already kind of a fake structure..? If not, my only nitty comment
is that memcpy(k->bytes[], ...) makes it kind of read like we're copying
in opaque key data rather than value data, so perhaps a slightly more
descriptive field name would be helpful. But regardless I'd wait until
Kent has a chance to comment before changing anything..
Brian
>
> #define KEY(_inode, _offset, _size) \
> diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/extents.h b/fs/bcachefs/extents.h
> index 7ee8d031bb6c..6248e17bbac5 100644
> --- a/fs/bcachefs/extents.h
> +++ b/fs/bcachefs/extents.h
> @@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static inline void bch2_bkey_append_ptr(struct bkey_i *k, struct bch_extent_ptr
>
> ptr.type = 1 << BCH_EXTENT_ENTRY_ptr;
>
> - memcpy((void *) &k->v + bkey_val_bytes(&k->k),
> + memcpy(&k->bytes[bkey_val_bytes(&k->k)],
> &ptr,
> sizeof(ptr));
> k->k.u64s++;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists