linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH iwl-next v3 16/18] idpf: add support for XDP on Rx

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]

Message-ID: <8c085ba0-29a3-492a-b9f1-e7d02b5fb558@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:12:43 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, Michal Kubiak
	<michal.kubiak@...el.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Przemek Kitszel
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David
 S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, "Jakub
 Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Alexei
 Starovoitov" <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	<nxne.cnse.osdt.itp.upstreaming@...el.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v3 16/18] idpf: add support for XDP on Rx

From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:05:47 -0700

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 01:37:34PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
>> While I appreciate the desire for improved performance and nicer code
>> generation. I think the idea of writing 64 bits of data to the
>> address of a 32 bit member of a structure goes against the direction
>> of hardening work by Kees and others.
> 
> Agreed: it's better to avoid obscuring these details from the compiler
> so it can have an "actual" view of the object sizes involved.
> 
>> Indeed, it seems to me this is the kind of thing that struct_group()
>> aims to avoid.
>>
>> In this case struct group() doesn't seem like the best option,
>> because it would provide a 64-bit buffer that we can memcpy into.
>> But it seems altogether better to simply assign u64 value to a u64 member.
> 
> Agreed: with struct_group you get a sized pointer, and while you can
> provide a struct tag to make it an assignable object, it doesn't make
> too much sense here.
> 
>> So I'm wondering if an approach along the following lines is appropriate
>> (Very lightly compile tested only!).
>>
>> And yes, there is room for improvement of the wording of the comment
>> I included below.
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/libeth/xdp.h b/include/net/libeth/xdp.h
>> index f4880b50e804..a7d3d8e44aa6 100644
>> --- a/include/net/libeth/xdp.h
>> +++ b/include/net/libeth/xdp.h
>> @@ -1283,11 +1283,7 @@ static inline void libeth_xdp_prepare_buff(struct libeth_xdp_buff *xdp,
>>  	const struct page *page = __netmem_to_page(fqe->netmem);
>>  
>>  #ifdef __LIBETH_WORD_ACCESS
>> -	static_assert(offsetofend(typeof(xdp->base), flags) -
>> -		      offsetof(typeof(xdp->base), frame_sz) ==
>> -		      sizeof(u64));
>> -
>> -	*(u64 *)&xdp->base.frame_sz = fqe->truesize;
>> +	xdp->base.frame_sz_le_qword = fqe->truesize;
>>  #else
>>  	xdp_init_buff(&xdp->base, fqe->truesize, xdp->base.rxq);
>>  #endif
>> diff --git a/include/net/xdp.h b/include/net/xdp.h
>> index b40f1f96cb11..b5eedeb82c9b 100644
>> --- a/include/net/xdp.h
>> +++ b/include/net/xdp.h
>> @@ -85,8 +85,19 @@ struct xdp_buff {
>>  	void *data_hard_start;
>>  	struct xdp_rxq_info *rxq;
>>  	struct xdp_txq_info *txq;
>> -	u32 frame_sz; /* frame size to deduce data_hard_end/reserved tailroom*/
>> -	u32 flags; /* supported values defined in xdp_buff_flags */
>> +	union {
>> +		/* Allow setting frame_sz and flags as a single u64 on
>> +		 * little endian systems. This may may give optimal
>> +		 * performance. */
>> +		u64 frame_sz_le_qword;
>> +		struct {
>> +			/* Frame size to deduce data_hard_end/reserved
>> +			 * tailroom. */
>> +			u32 frame_sz;
>> +			/* Supported values defined in xdp_buff_flags. */
>> +			u32 flags;
>> +		};
>> +	};
>>  };
> 
> Yeah, this looks like a nice way to express this, and is way more
> descriptive than "(u64 *)&xdp->base.frame_sz" :)

Sounds good to me!

Let me send v4 where I'll fix this.

Thanks,
Olek