linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] async

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: <CAPcyv4j9AoRtjpLfHX=gjgv35gNtb5fKt3rFaGA4ZPkPg1GfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 15:04:02 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kyle Spiers <ksspiers@...gle.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ray.jui@...adcom.com,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>, vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] async_pq: Remove VLA usage

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>> [ add Vinod's korg address ]
>>
>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>> [ adding linux-raid ]
>>>
>>> Apologies for the delay, the recent ping from Kees made me take a closer look.
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Kyle Spiers <ksspiers@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>> In the quest to remove VLAs from the kernel[1], this moves the
>>>> allocation of coefs and blocks from the stack to being kmalloc()ed.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kyle Spiers <ksspiers@...gle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Forgot to add slab.h
>>>> ---
>>>>  crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c  | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>>>>  crypto/async_tx/raid6test.c |  9 ++++++++-
>>>>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c b/crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c
>>>> index 56bd612927ab..af1912313a23 100644
>>>> --- a/crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c
>>>> +++ b/crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c
>>>> @@ -194,9 +194,9 @@ async_gen_syndrome(struct page **blocks, unsigned int offset, int disks,
>>>>             (src_cnt <= dma_maxpq(device, 0) ||
>>>>              dma_maxpq(device, DMA_PREP_CONTINUE) > 0) &&
>>>>             is_dma_pq_aligned(device, offset, 0, len)) {
>>>> -               struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx;
>>>> +               struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx = NULL;
>>>>                 enum dma_ctrl_flags dma_flags = 0;
>>>> -               unsigned char coefs[src_cnt];
>>>> +               unsigned char *coefs;
>>> At a minimum this needs to be GFP_NOIO since raid may be in the
>>> page-reclaim path.
>>>
>>> However, I think it may be better to allocate this with the rest of
>>> the stripe resources and pass it in as a scratch buffer. See the usage
>>> / implementation of scribble_alloc() in drivers/md/raid5.c.
>
> Given this:
>
>         int src_cnt = disks - 2;
> ...
>         BUG_ON(disks > 255 || ...)
>
> what about just making something like:
>
> #define MAX_DISKS 255
> ...
>         int src_cnt = disks - 2;
> ...
>         BUG_ON(disks > MAX_DISKS || ...)
> ...
>                  unsigned char coefs[MAX_DISKS];
>
> ?

Yeah, we were already potentially suffering a value that large on the
stack in a max config case anyway with the VLA. Looks ok to me.