linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 089/100] net: cpsw: Properly initialise struct page_pool

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:19:09 -0800
From:   Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 089/100] net: cpsw: Properly initialise struct
 page_pool_params

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:56:50AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> 
> [ Upstream commit c63003e3d99761afb280add3b30de1cf30fa522b ]
> 
> The cpsw driver didn't properly initialise the struct page_pool_params
> before calling page_pool_create(), which leads to crashes after the struct
> has been expanded with new parameters.
> 
> The second Fixes tag below is where the buggy code was introduced, but
> because the code was moved around this patch will only apply on top of the
> commit in the first Fixes tag.
> 
> Fixes: c5013ac1dd0e ("net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: move set of common functions in cpsw_priv")
> Fixes: 9ed4050c0d75 ("net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: add XDP support")

In 5.4 every parameter is individually initialized, so there really
isn't a "bug" necessarily. Only at commit e68bc75691cc does it actually
start not initializing every parameter.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4.175/source/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c#L558

I'm not familiar with the process of backporting fixes to stable yet. Is
there any benefit in this cleanup for 5.4 or is it fine to leave it?

> Reported-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
> Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.c
> index 424e644724e46..e74f2e95a46eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_priv.c
> @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ int cpsw_fill_rx_channels(struct cpsw_priv *priv)
>  static struct page_pool *cpsw_create_page_pool(struct cpsw_common *cpsw,
>  					       int size)
>  {
> -	struct page_pool_params pp_params;
> +	struct page_pool_params pp_params = {};
>  	struct page_pool *pool;
>  
>  	pp_params.order = 0;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 
>