On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:19:17PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> > On 26.10.19 21:40, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 15:54 +0800, zhanglin wrote:
> > >> memset() the structure ethtool_wolinfo that has padded bytes
> > >> but the padded bytes have not been zeroed out.
> > > []
> > >> diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c
> > > []
> > >> @@ -1471,11 +1471,13 @@ static int ethtool_reset(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr)
> > >>
> > >> static int ethtool_get_wol(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr)
> > >> {
> > >> - struct ethtool_wolinfo wol = { .cmd = ETHTOOL_GWOL };
> > >> + struct ethtool_wolinfo wol;
> > >>
> > >> if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_wol)
> > >> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > >>
> > >> + memset(&wol, 0, sizeof(struct ethtool_wolinfo));
> > >> + wol.cmd = ETHTOOL_GWOL;
> > >> dev->ethtool_ops->get_wol(dev, &wol);
> > >>
> > >> if (copy_to_user(useraddr, &wol, sizeof(wol)))
> > >
> > > It seems likely there are more of these.
> > >
> > > Is there any way for coccinelle to find them?
> >
> > Just curios: is static struct initialization (on stack) something that
> > should be avoided ? I've been under the impression that static
> > initialization allows thinner code and gives the compiler better chance
> > for optimizations.
>
> Not in general. The (potential) problem here is that the structure has
> padding and it is as a whole (i.e. including the padding) copied to
> userspace. While I'm not aware of a compiler that wouldn't actually
> initialize the whole data block including the padding in this case, the
> C standard provides no guarantee about that so that to be sure we cannot
> leak leftover kernel data to userspace, we need to explicitly initialize
> the whole block.
GCC will not always initialize the struct holes. This patch fixes a
real bug that GCC on my system (v7.4)
regards,
dan carpenter
