netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] hinic: avoid gcc -Wrestrict warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2c81e5fe-14d4-aefc-58d3-b32a14615881@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:40:17 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Bin Luo <luobin9@...wei.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] hinic: avoid gcc -Wrestrict warning

On 23/03/2021 13.56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> With extra warnings enabled, gcc complains that snprintf should not
> take the same buffer as source and destination:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c: In function 'hinic_set_settings_to_hw':
> drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c:480:9: error: 'snprintf' argument 4 overlaps destination object 'set_link_str' [-Werror=restrict]
>   480 |   err = snprintf(set_link_str, SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN,
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   481 |           "%sspeed %d ", set_link_str, speed);
>       |           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c:464:7: note: destination object referenced by 'restrict'-qualified argument 1 was declared here
>   464 |  char set_link_str[SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN] = {0};
> 
> Rewrite this to remember the offset of the previous printf output
> instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c
> index c340d9acba80..74aefc8fc4d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/huawei/hinic/hinic_ethtool.c
> @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ static int hinic_set_settings_to_hw(struct hinic_dev *nic_dev,
>  	char set_link_str[SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN] = {0};
>  	struct net_device *netdev = nic_dev->netdev;
>  	enum nic_speed_level speed_level = 0;
> -	int err;
> +	int err, off;
>  
>  	err = snprintf(set_link_str, SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN, "%s",
>  		       (set_settings & HILINK_LINK_SET_AUTONEG) ?
> @@ -475,10 +475,11 @@ static int hinic_set_settings_to_hw(struct hinic_dev *nic_dev,
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  	}
>  
> +	off = err;
>  	if (set_settings & HILINK_LINK_SET_SPEED) {
>  		speed_level = hinic_ethtool_to_hw_speed_level(speed);
> -		err = snprintf(set_link_str, SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN,
> -			       "%sspeed %d ", set_link_str, speed);
> +		err = snprintf(set_link_str + off, SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN - off,
> +			       "speed %d ", speed);
>  		if (err <= 0 || err >= SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN) {

This is broken, the second snprintf has no longer overflown if "err >=
SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN", but if "err >= SET_LINK_STR_MAX_LEN - off". (The
existing err <= 0 check is also bogus, but that's a different story).

But, I think these conversions where you use snprintf are all broken,
it's only a matter of time before gcc or another static analyzer also
learns a
"Wusing-return-value-from-snprintf-as-index-to-output-buffer-is-fragile-because,you-know,snprintf-semantics..."
and then we'd have to revisit all these. You should in general, when
building a string by repeatedly printf'ing to a local buffer, use the
"len += scnprintf()" pattern. That doesn't easily provide a "have we
overflown at some point" so is not directly applicable here, but all the
more reason to start making use of seq_buf to wrap a local char buffer
in a nice abstraction that lets you seq_buf_printf() and ask
seq_buf_has_overflowed().

Rasmus