netdev - Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 08 Sep 2021 09:09:04 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
        GR-everest-linux-l2@...vell.com, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: ipv4/tcp.c:4234:1: error: the frame size of 1152 bytes is
 larger than 1024 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]

On Tue, 2021-09-07 at 16:14 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> The mac802.11 one seems to be due to 'struct ieee802_11_elems' being
> big, and allocated on the stack. I think it's probably made worse
> there with inlining, ie
> 
>  - ieee80211_sta_rx_queued_mgmt() has one copy
> 
>  - ieee80211_rx_mgmt_beacon() is possibly inlined, and has its own copy
> 
> but even if it isn't due to that kind of duplication due to inlining,
> that code is dangerous. Exactly because it has two nested stack frames
> with that big structure, and they are active at the same time in the
> callchain whether inlined or not.
> 
> And it's *pointlessly* dangerous, because the 'struct ieee802_11_elems
> elems' in ieee80211_sta_rx_queued_mgmt() is only used for the
> IEEE80211_STYPE_ACTION case, so it is entirely disjoint from the
> IEEE80211_STYPE_BEACON case, and those stack allocations simply should
> not nest like that in the first place.
> 
> Making the IEEE80211_STYPE_ACTION case be its own function - like the
> other cases - and moving the struct there should fix it. Possibly a
> "noinline" or two necessary to make sure that the compiler doesn't
> then undo the "these two cases are disjoint" thing.

Yeah, I'm aware, and I agree. We've been looking at it every now and
then. This got made worse by us actually adding a fair amount of
pointers to the struct recently (in this merge window).

Ultimately, every new spec addition ends up needing to add something
there, so I think ultimately we'll probably want to either dynamically
allocate it somewhere (perhaps in a data structure used here already),
or possibly not have this at all and just find a way to return only the
bits that are interesting. Even parsing a ~1k frame (typical, max ~2k) a
handful of times is probably not even worse than having this large a
structure that gets filled data that's probably useless in many cases (I
think the different cases all just need a subset). But not sure, I'll
take a look.

johannes