linux-kernel - [PATCH] dm-integrity: reduce stack usage for recheck

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 13:12:14 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
	Yu Zhe <yuzhe@...china.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] dm-integrity: reduce stack usage for recheck

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>

The newly added integrity_recheck() function has another larger stack
allocation, just like its caller integrity_metadata(). When it gets
inlined, the combination of the two exceeds the warning limit for 32-bit
architectures and possibly risks an overflow when this is called from
a deep call chain through a file system:

drivers/md/dm-integrity.c:1767:13: error: stack frame size (1048) exceeds limit (1024) in 'integrity_metadata' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
 1767 | static void integrity_metadata(struct work_struct *w)

Since the caller at this point is done using its checksum buffer,
just reuse the same buffer in the new function to avoid the double
allocation.

Fixes: c88f5e553fe3 ("dm-integrity: recheck the integrity tag after a failure")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
---
 drivers/md/dm-integrity.c | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c b/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c
index 143f6c223b0e..82023f1f3df0 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-integrity.c
@@ -1691,14 +1691,13 @@ static void integrity_sector_checksum(struct dm_integrity_c *ic, sector_t sector
 	get_random_bytes(result, ic->tag_size);
 }
 
-static void integrity_recheck(struct dm_integrity_io *dio)
+static void integrity_recheck(struct dm_integrity_io *dio, char *checksum)
 {
 	struct bio *bio = dm_bio_from_per_bio_data(dio, sizeof(struct dm_integrity_io));
 	struct dm_integrity_c *ic = dio->ic;
 	struct bvec_iter iter;
 	struct bio_vec bv;
 	sector_t sector, logical_sector, area, offset;
-	char checksum_onstack[max_t(size_t, HASH_MAX_DIGESTSIZE, MAX_TAG_SIZE)];
 	struct page *page;
 	void *buffer;
 
@@ -1735,8 +1734,8 @@ static void integrity_recheck(struct dm_integrity_io *dio)
 			}
 
 			integrity_sector_checksum(ic, logical_sector, buffer,
-						  checksum_onstack);
-			r = dm_integrity_rw_tag(ic, checksum_onstack, &dio->metadata_block,
+						  checksum);
+			r = dm_integrity_rw_tag(ic, checksum, &dio->metadata_block,
 						&dio->metadata_offset, ic->tag_size, TAG_CMP);
 			if (r) {
 				if (r > 0) {
@@ -1851,7 +1850,7 @@ static void integrity_metadata(struct work_struct *w)
 						checksums_ptr - checksums, dio->op == REQ_OP_READ ? TAG_CMP : TAG_WRITE);
 			if (unlikely(r)) {
 				if (r > 0) {
-					integrity_recheck(dio);
+					integrity_recheck(dio, checksums);
 					goto skip_io;
 				}
 				if (likely(checksums != checksums_onstack))
-- 
2.39.2