Re: [PATCH 48/64] drbd: Use struct_group() to zero algs
From: Nick Desaulniers <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-30 15:32:26
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-block, linux-hardening, linux-kbuild, linux-staging, lkml, netdev
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 7:31 PM Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:45:55PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:quoted
On 7/27/21 1:58 PM, 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. Add a struct_group() for the algs so that memset() can correctly reason about the size. Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted> --- drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c | 3 ++- drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h | 6 ++++-- drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c | 3 ++- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c index 55234a558e98..b824679cfcb2 100644 --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_main.c@@ -729,7 +729,8 @@ int drbd_send_sync_param(struct drbd_peer_device *peer_device) cmd = apv >= 89 ? P_SYNC_PARAM89 : P_SYNC_PARAM; /* initialize verify_alg and csums_alg */ - memset(p->verify_alg, 0, 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX); + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(p->algs) != 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX); + memset(&p->algs, 0, sizeof(p->algs)); if (get_ldev(peer_device->device)) { dc = rcu_dereference(peer_device->device->ldev->disk_conf);diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h index dea59c92ecc1..a882b65ab5d2 100644 --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_protocol.h@@ -283,8 +283,10 @@ struct p_rs_param_89 { struct p_rs_param_95 { u32 resync_rate; - char verify_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX]; - char csums_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX]; + struct_group(algs, + char verify_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX]; + char csums_alg[SHARED_SECRET_MAX]; + ); u32 c_plan_ahead; u32 c_delay_target; u32 c_fill_target;diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c index 1f740e42e457..6df2539e215b 100644 --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c@@ -3921,7 +3921,8 @@ static int receive_SyncParam(struct drbd_connection *connection, struct packet_i /* initialize verify_alg and csums_alg */ p = pi->data; - memset(p->verify_alg, 0, 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX); + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(p->algs) != 2 * SHARED_SECRET_MAX); + memset(&p->algs, 0, sizeof(p->algs));Using struct_group() introduces complexity. Has it been considered not to modify struct p_rs_param_95 and instead to use two memset() calls instead of one (one memset() call per member)?I went this direction because using two memset()s (or memcpy()s in other patches) changes the machine code. It's not much of a change, but it seems easier to justify "no binary changes" via the use of struct_group(). If splitting the memset() is preferred, I can totally do that instead. :)
I'm not sure that compilers can fold memsets of adjacent members. It might not matter, but you could wrap these members in a _named_ struct then simply use assignment for optimal codegen. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers