[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jK7iRv1HE7JgW95vTgg5vhye4dxjfoQyN3G7HZzp7nZhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:30:33 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
Lars Persson <larper@...s.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, qat-linux@...el.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/14] rxrpc: Prepare to remove VLA usage for SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:36 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> Two uses of SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK() will trigger FRAME_WARN warnings
>>> (when less than 2048) once the VLA is no longer hidden from the check:
>>>
>>> net/rxrpc/rxkad.c:398:1: warning: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
>>> net/rxrpc/rxkad.c:242:1: warning: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
>>>
>>> This bumps the affected objects by 20% to silence the warnings while
>>> still providing coverage is anything grows even more.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>
>> (adding David Howells to cc)
>>
>> I don't think these are in a fast path, it should be possible to just use
>> skcipher_alloc_req() instead of SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK() here.
>> From what I can tell, neither of the two are called in atomic context, so
>> you should be able to use a GFP_KERNEL allocation.
>
> Sure, I can do that instead.
Actually, I think this can actually be adjusted to just re-use the
stack allocation, since rxkad_verify_packet() finishes one before
doing another in rxkad_verify_packet_1():
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c b/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c
index 278ac0807a60..d6a2e7cab384 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/rxkad.c
@@ -316,10 +316,10 @@ static int rxkad_secure_packet(struct rxrpc_call *call,
*/
static int rxkad_verify_packet_1(struct rxrpc_call *call, struct sk_buff *skb,
unsigned int offset, unsigned int len,
- rxrpc_seq_t seq)
+ rxrpc_seq_t seq,
+ struct skcipher_request *req)
{
struct rxkad_level1_hdr sechdr;
- SKCIPHER_REQUEST_ON_STACK(req, call->conn->cipher);
struct rxrpc_crypt iv;
struct scatterlist sg[16];
struct sk_buff *trailer;
@@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ static int rxkad_verify_packet(struct rxrpc_call
*call, struct sk_buff *skb,
case RXRPC_SECURITY_PLAIN:
return 0;
case RXRPC_SECURITY_AUTH:
- return rxkad_verify_packet_1(call, skb, offset, len, seq);
+ return rxkad_verify_packet_1(call, skb, offset, len, seq, req);
case RXRPC_SECURITY_ENCRYPT:
return rxkad_verify_packet_2(call, skb, offset, len, seq);
default:
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists