Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] rds: Prevent kernel-infoleak in rds_notify_queue_get()
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2020-07-31 17:19:41
Also in:
linux-kernel-mentees, linux-rdma, lkml
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:36:04AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 04:21:48PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:quoted
quoted
The spec was updated in C11 to require zero'ing padding when doing partial initialization of aggregates (eg = {}) """if it is an aggregate, every member is initialized (recursively) according to these rules, and any padding is initialized to zero bits;"""But then why does the compilers not do this?Do you have an example?
At the moment, no, but we have had them in the past due to security issues we have had to fix for this.
quoted
quoted
Considering we have thousands of aggregate initializers it seems likely to me Linux also requires a compiler with this C11 behavior to operate correctly.Note that this is not an "operate correctly" thing, it is a "zero out stale data in structure paddings so that data will not leak to userspace" thing.Yes, not being insecure is "operate correctly", IMHO :)quoted
quoted
Does this patch actually fix anything? My compiler generates identical assembly code in either case.What compiler version?I tried clang 10 and gcc 9.3 for x86-64. #include <string.h> void test(void *out) { struct rds_rdma_notify { unsigned long user_token; unsigned int status; } foo = {}; memcpy(out, &foo, sizeof(foo)); } $ gcc -mno-sse2 -O2 -Wall -std=c99 t.c -S test: endbr64 movq $0, (%rdi) movq $0, 8(%rdi) ret Just did this same test with gcc 4.4 and it also gave the same output.. Made it more complex with this: struct rds_rdma_notify { unsigned long user_token; unsigned char status; unsigned long user_token1; unsigned char status1; unsigned long user_token2; unsigned char status2; unsigned long user_token3; unsigned char status3; unsigned long user_token4; unsigned char status4; } foo; And still got the same assembly vs memset on gcc 4.4. I tried for a bit and didn't find a way to get even old gcc 4.4 to not initialize the holes.
Odd, so it is just the "= {0};" that does not zero out the holes?
thanks,
greg k-h