[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3ffbcf75-166e-5802-1d8e-9c7739961b80@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 12:11:02 -0700
From: Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Keith Packard <keithpac@...zon.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/64] scsi: ibmvscsi: Avoid multi-field memset() overflow
by aiming at srp
On 7/28/21 8:35 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Kees,
>
>> For example, change it to:
>>
>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(evt_struct->iu.srp) != SRP_MAX_IU_LEN);
>> + memset(&evt_struct->iu.srp, 0x00, sizeof(evt_struct->iu.srp));
>> srp_cmd = &evt_struct->iu.srp.cmd;
>> - memset(srp_cmd, 0x00, SRP_MAX_IU_LEN);
>
>> For the moment, I'll leave the patch as-is unless you prefer having
>> the BUILD_BUG_ON(). :)
>
> I'm OK with the BUILD_BUG_ON(). Hopefully Tyrel or Brian will chime in.
>
All the other srp structs are at most 64 bytes and the size of the union is
explicitly set to SRP_MAX_IU_LEN by the last field of the union.
union srp_iu {
struct srp_login_req login_req;
struct srp_login_rsp login_rsp;
struct srp_login_rej login_rej;
struct srp_i_logout i_logout;
struct srp_t_logout t_logout;
struct srp_tsk_mgmt tsk_mgmt;
struct srp_cmd cmd;
struct srp_rsp rsp;
u8 reserved[SRP_MAX_IU_LEN];
};
So, in my mind if SRP_MAX_IU_LEN ever changes so does the size of the union
making the BUILD_BUG_ON() superfluous. But it doesn't really hurt anything either.
-Tyrel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists