linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Input: cros_ec_keyb - avoid variable-length arrays on stack

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:12:17 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...omium.org>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@...omium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: cros_ec_keyb - avoid variable-length arrays on
 stack

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 10:57:14AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> > <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:40:44AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> Dmitry,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for cleaning up cros_eckeyb.  :)  I'm a little curious about
> >>> the motivation here.  I can't imagine a keyboard with all that many
> >>> columns (ours has 13), so it's really not taking a whole lot off of
> >>> the stack.  Are you trying to make some sort of automated checker
> >>> happy, or just generally trying to keep the kernel consistent?
> >>
> >> I compile most of the code with sparse so I prefer to keep it happy.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In any case, I'm not opposed to moving these bytes off the stack.
> >>> Comments below, though...
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> >>> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> ...
> >>> > @@ -217,32 +219,40 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> >         struct cros_ec_keyb *ckdev;
> >>> >         struct input_dev *idev;
> >>> >         struct device_node *np;
> >>> > +       unsigned int rows, cols;
> >>> > +       size_t size;
> >>> >         int err;
> >>> >
> >>> >         np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >>> >         if (!np)
> >>> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >>> >
> >>> > -       ckdev = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*ckdev), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> > -       if (!ckdev)
> >>> > -               return -ENOMEM;
> >>> > -       err = matrix_keypad_parse_of_params(&pdev->dev, &ckdev->rows,
> >>> > -                                           &ckdev->cols);
> >>> > +       err = matrix_keypad_parse_of_params(&pdev->dev, &rows, &cols);
> >>> >         if (err)
> >>> >                 return err;
> >>> > -       ckdev->old_kb_state = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, ckdev->cols, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> > -       if (!ckdev->old_kb_state)
> >>> > -               return -ENOMEM;
> >>> >
> >>> > -       idev = devm_input_allocate_device(&pdev->dev);
> >>> > -       if (!idev)
> >>> > +       /*
> >>> > +        * Double memory for keyboard state so we have space for storing
> >>> > +        * current and previous state.
> >>> > +        */
> >>> > +       size = sizeof(*ckdev) + 2 * cols * sizeof(*ckdev->kb_state);
> >>> > +       ckdev = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> > +       if (!ckdev)
> >>> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >>>
> >>> This change seems like a lot of complexity to save one memory
> >>> allocation.  If you insist, I'd be OK with having one allocation for
> >>> both buffers (kb_state and old_kb_state) but trying to jam this onto
> >>> the end of the structure is non-obvious.  It certainly took me a
> >>> minute to understand what you were doing and why.
> >>
> >> It is not one additional allocation but more as you need to allocate
> >> devres data structures and add them there. I think we have quite a few
> >> drivers piggy-backing key tables at the end of data structures.
> 
> OK, I will leave this as your call.  To me, piggybacking like this
> make sense if you've got a single chunk of dynamic memory that you
> just want to cram onto the end of the structure.  It just gets more
> complicated when you have two nearly identical chunks of memory and
> one of them is using this piggybacking technique while the other
> isn't.
> 
> What about a compromise and declaring as:
> 
>  u8 *kb_state;
>  u8 *old_kb_state;
>  u8 buffers[];
> 
> You still have the same number of memory allocations but (to me) it's
> much clearer what's going on here.  You do pay a penalty of an extra
> memory dereference and an extra 4 bytes of memory, but clarity should
> trump that.

OK, I can do that.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/