On 28/07/2021 07.49, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:58:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid
intentionally writing across neighboring fields.

Add a flexible array member to mark the end of struct nlmsghdr, and
split the memcpy() to avoid false positive memcpy() warning:

memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 32) of single field (size 16)

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 include/uapi/linux/netlink.h | 1 +
 net/netlink/af_netlink.c     | 4 +++-
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
index 4c0cde075c27..ddeaa748df5e 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/netlink.h

@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ struct nlmsghdr {
 	__u16		nlmsg_flags;	/* Additional flags */
 	__u32		nlmsg_seq;	/* Sequence number */
 	__u32		nlmsg_pid;	/* Sending process port ID */
+	__u8		contents[];

Is this ok to change a public, userspace visable, structure?

At least it should keep using a nlmsg_ prefix for consistency and reduce
risk of collision with somebody having defined an object-like contents
macro. But there's no guarantees in any case, of course.

Rasmus