On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:42:15AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:58:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

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

Use memset_after() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing
beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point
of zeroing through the end of the struct.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
---
 fs/btrfs/root-tree.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c
index 702dc5441f03..ec9e78f65fca 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/root-tree.c

@@ -39,10 +39,7 @@ static void btrfs_read_root_item(struct extent_buffer *eb, int slot,
 		need_reset = 1;
 	}
 	if (need_reset) {
-		memset(&item->generation_v2, 0,
-			sizeof(*item) - offsetof(struct btrfs_root_item,
-					generation_v2));
-

Please add
		/* Clear all members from generation_v2 onwards */

quoted

+		memset_after(item, 0, level);

Perhaps there should be another helper memset_starting()? That would
make these cases a bit more self-documenting.

+		memset_starting(item, 0, generation_v2);

quoted

 		generate_random_guid(item->uuid);

Acked-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

What do you think?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook