linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Refactor bkey

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202310181607.2244DB9F40@keescook>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:08:31 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, 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 Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:36:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 06:04:07PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 04:44:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > 
> > > I was thinking it would be best to keep the flexible array has "high" in
> > > the struct as possible, as in the future more refactoring will be needed
> > > to avoid having flex arrays overlap with other members in composite
> > > structures. So instead of pushing into bch_val, I left it at the highest
> > > level possible, bch_i, as that's the struct being used by the memcpy().
> > 
> > I agree with Brian here - I'd like this buried in bch_val, if possible.
> > 
> > I also went with unsafe_memcpy() for now - that's now in my for-next
> > tree. I'm not seeing any advantage of DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY over that -
> > perhaps later if we could use __counted_by that would make more sense.
> 
> This won't help here because of the combination of -fstrict-flex-arrays=3
> and -Wstringop-overflow (the latter is in W=1 builds). The builtin memcpy
> still complains about the 0-sized destination. I'll send a v3 with this
> in bch_val.

Actually, I've sent a v3 that totally replaces the memcpy with a direct
assignment instead. No struct changes needed!

-- 
Kees Cook