[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e8551085-30b8-dce3-28b7-233b47a7ddc1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 10:30:15 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Josef Oskera <joskera@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] mlx4: supress fortify for inlined xmit
On 19/02/2023 11:16, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>
>
> On 18/02/2023 18:26, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On February 17, 2023 1:45:41 AM PST, Josef Oskera <joskera@...hat.com>
>> wrote:
>>> This call "skb_copy_from_linear_data(skb, inl + 1, spc)" triggers
>>> FORTIFY memcpy()
>>> warning on ppc64 platform.
>>>
>>> In function ‘fortify_memcpy_chk’,
>>> inlined from ‘skb_copy_from_linear_data’ at
>>> ./include/linux/skbuff.h:4029:2,
>>> inlined from ‘build_inline_wqe’ at
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c:722:4,
>>> inlined from ‘mlx4_en_xmit’ at
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c:1066:3:
>>> ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:513:25: error: call to
>>> ‘__write_overflow_field’ declared with attribute warning: detected
>>> write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()?
>>> [-Werror=attribute-warning]
>>> 513 | __write_overflow_field(p_size_field,
>>> size);
>>> |
>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Same behaviour on x86 you can get if you use "__always_inline"
>>> instead of
>>> "inline" for skb_copy_from_linear_data() in skbuff.h
>>>
>>> The call here copies data into inlined tx destricptor, which has 104
>>> bytes
>>> (MAX_INLINE) space for data payload. In this case "spc" is known in
>>> compile-time
>>> but the destination is used with hidden knowledge (real structure of
>>> destination
>>> is different from that the compiler can see). That cause the fortify
>>> warning
>>> because compiler can check bounds, but the real bounds are different.
>>> "spc" can't be bigger than 64 bytes (MLX4_INLINE_ALIGN), so the data
>>> can always
>>> fit into inlined tx descriptor.
>>> The fact that "inl" points into inlined tx descriptor is determined
>>> earlier
>>> in mlx4_en_xmit().
>>>
>>> Fixes: f68f2ff91512c1 fortify: Detect struct member overflows in
>>> memcpy() at compile-time
>>> Signed-off-by: Josef Oskera <joskera@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c
>>> index c5758637b7bed6..f30ca9fe90e5b4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_tx.c
>>> @@ -719,7 +719,16 @@ static void build_inline_wqe(struct
>>> mlx4_en_tx_desc *tx_desc,
>>> inl = (void *) (inl + 1) + spc;
>>> memcpy(((void *)(inl + 1)), fragptr, skb->len - spc);
>>
>> Using "unsafe" isn't the right solution here. What needs fixing is the
>> "inl + 1" pattern which lacks any sense from the compilet's
>> perspective. The struct of inl needs to end with a flex array, and it
>> should be used for all the accesses. i.e. replace all the "inl + 1"
>> instances with "inl->data". This makes it more readable for humans
>> too. :)
>>
>> I can send a patch...
>>
>
> Although expanding the mlx4_wqe_inline_seg struct with a flex array
> sounds valid, I wouldn't go that way as it requires a larger change,
> touching common and RDMA code as well, for a driver in it's end-of-life
> stage.
>
> We already have such unsafe_memcpy usage in mlx5 driver, so I can accept
> it here as well.
>
> Let's keep the change as contained as possible.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Kees posted a contained alternative solution.
Let's go with that one. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists