On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 07:23:00PM +0300, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 02:29:28PM +0000, Shai Malin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2021 at 07:07:00PM -0300, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 01:58:33PM -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>
> > > > ---
> > > > The old code seems to be doing the wrong thing: starting from not the
> > > > first member, but sized for the whole struct. Which is correct?
> > >
> > > Quick ping on this question.
> > >
> > > The old code seems to be doing the wrong thing: it starts from the second
> > > member and writes beyond int_info, clobbering qede_lock:
> >
> > Thanks for highlighting the problem, but actually, the memset is redundant.
> > We will remove it so the change will not be needed.
> >
> > >
> > > struct qede_dev {
> > > ...
> > > struct qed_int_info int_info;
> > >
> > > /* Smaller private variant of the RTNL lock */
> > > struct mutex qede_lock;
> > > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > struct qed_int_info {
> > > struct msix_entry *msix;
> > > u8 msix_cnt;
> > >
> > > /* This should be updated by the protocol driver */
> > > u8 used_cnt;
> > > };
> > >
> > > Should this also clear the "msix" member, or should this not write
> > > beyond int_info? This patch does the latter.
> >
> > It should clear only the msix_cnt, no need to clear the entire
> > qed_int_info structure.
>
> Should used_cnt be cleared too? It is currently. Better yet, what patch
> do you suggest I replace this proposed one with? :)
In qede_sync_free_irqs(), just after:
edev->int_info.used_cnt = 0;
Please add:
edev->int_info.msix_cnt = 0;
Thanks!
>
> Thanks for looking at this!
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
