[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250904091315.GB372207@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 10:13:15 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.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>,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] virtio_net: Fix alignment and avoid
-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warning
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:36:13PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end was introduced in GCC-14, and we are
> getting ready to enable it, globally.
>
> Use the new TRAILING_OVERLAP() helper to fix the following warning:
>
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c:429:46: warning: structure containing a flexible array member is not at the end of another structure [-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end]
>
> This helper creates a union between a flexible-array member (FAM)
> and a set of members that would otherwise follow it (in this case
> `u8 rss_hash_key_data[VIRTIO_NET_RSS_MAX_KEY_SIZE];`). This
> overlays the trailing members (rss_hash_key_data) onto the FAM
> (hash_key_data) while keeping the FAM and the start of MEMBERS aligned.
> The static_assert() ensures this alignment remains, and it's
> intentionally placed inmediately after `struct virtnet_info` (no
> blank line in between).
>
> Notice that due to tail padding in flexible `struct
> virtio_net_rss_config_trailer`, `rss_trailer.hash_key_data`
> (at offset 83 in struct virtnet_info) and `rss_hash_key_data` (at
> offset 84 in struct virtnet_info) are misaligned by one byte. See
> below:
>
> struct virtio_net_rss_config_trailer {
> __le16 max_tx_vq; /* 0 2 */
> __u8 hash_key_length; /* 2 1 */
> __u8 hash_key_data[]; /* 3 0 */
>
> /* size: 4, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
> /* padding: 1 */
> /* last cacheline: 4 bytes */
> };
>
> struct virtnet_info {
> ...
> struct virtio_net_rss_config_trailer rss_trailer; /* 80 4 */
>
> /* XXX last struct has 1 byte of padding */
>
> u8 rss_hash_key_data[40]; /* 84 40 */
> ...
> /* size: 832, cachelines: 13, members: 48 */
> /* sum members: 801, holes: 8, sum holes: 31 */
> /* paddings: 2, sum paddings: 5 */
> };
>
> After changes, those members are correctly aligned at offset 795:
>
> struct virtnet_info {
> ...
> union {
> struct virtio_net_rss_config_trailer rss_trailer; /* 792 4 */
> struct {
> unsigned char __offset_to_hash_key_data[3]; /* 792 3 */
> u8 rss_hash_key_data[40]; /* 795 40 */
> }; /* 792 43 */
> }; /* 792 44 */
> ...
> /* size: 840, cachelines: 14, members: 47 */
> /* sum members: 801, holes: 8, sum holes: 35 */
> /* padding: 4 */
> /* paddings: 1, sum paddings: 4 */
> /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> };
>
> As a last note `struct virtio_net_rss_config_hdr *rss_hdr;` is also
> moved to the end, since it seems those three members should stick
> around together. :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> This should probably include the following tag:
>
> Fixes: ed3100e90d0d ("virtio_net: Use new RSS config structs")
>
> but I'd like to hear some feedback, first.
I tend to agree given that:
On the one hand:
1) in virtnet_init_default_rss(), netdev_rss_key_fill() is used
to write random data to .rss_hash_key_data
2) In virtnet_set_rxfh() key data written to .rss_hash_key_data
While
3) In virtnet_commit_rss_command() virtio_net_rss_config_trailer,
including the contents of .hash_key_data based on the length of
that data provided in .hash_key_length is copied.
It seems to me that step 3 will include 1 byte of uninitialised data
at the start of .hash_key_data. And, correspondingly, truncate
.rss_hash_key_data by one byte.
It's unclear to me what the effect of this - perhaps they key works
regardless. But it doesn't seem intended. And while the result may be
neutral, I do suspect this reduces the quality of the key. And I more
strongly suspect it doesn't have any positive outcome.
So I would lean towards playing it safe and considering this as a bug.
Of course, other's may have better insight as to the actual effect of this.
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists