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:
> > 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 <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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 */
>
> > + 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);
> > generate_random_guid(item->uuid);
>
> Acked-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
What do you think?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
