On Wed. 18 Aug 2021 at 15:48, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:13:51PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > On Wed. 18 Aug 2021 at 12:40, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > While raw_msg isn't a fixed size, it does have a maximum size. Adjust the
> > > struct to represent this and avoid the following warning when building
> > > with -Wzero-length-bounds:
> > >
> > > drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
> > > drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
> > > 360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
> > > from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
> > > drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
> > > 231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
> > > | ^~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Arunachalam Santhanam <arunachalam.santhanam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-can@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es581_4.h | 2 +-
> > > drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es581_4.h b/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es581_4.h
> > > index 4bc60a6df697..af38c4938859 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es581_4.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es581_4.h
> > > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ struct es581_4_urb_cmd {
> > > struct es581_4_rx_cmd_ret rx_cmd_ret;
> > > __le64 timestamp;
> > > u8 rx_cmd_ret_u8;
> > > - u8 raw_msg[0];
> > > + u8 raw_msg[USHRT_MAX];
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > __le16 reserved_for_crc16_do_not_use;
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h b/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h
> > > index ee18a87e40c0..e0319b8358ef 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h
> > > @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ struct es58x_fd_urb_cmd {
> > > struct es58x_fd_tx_ack_msg tx_ack_msg;
> > > __le64 timestamp;
> > > __le32 rx_cmd_ret_le32;
> > > - u8 raw_msg[0];
> > > + u8 raw_msg[USHRT_MAX];
> > > } __packed;
> > >
> > > __le16 reserved_for_crc16_do_not_use;
> > > --
> > > 2.30.2
> >
> > raw_msg is part of a union so its maximum size is implicitly the
> > biggest size of the other member of that union:
>
> Yup, understood. See below...
>
> >
> > | struct es58x_fd_urb_cmd {
> > | __le16 SOF;
> > | u8 cmd_type;
> > | u8 cmd_id;
> > | u8 channel_idx;
> > | __le16 msg_len;
> > |
> > | union {
> > | struct es58x_fd_tx_conf_msg tx_conf_msg;
> > | u8 tx_can_msg_buf[ES58X_FD_TX_BULK_MAX * ES58X_FD_CANFD_TX_LEN];
> > | u8 rx_can_msg_buf[ES58X_FD_RX_BULK_MAX * ES58X_FD_CANFD_RX_LEN];
> > | struct es58x_fd_echo_msg echo_msg[ES58X_FD_ECHO_BULK_MAX];
> > | struct es58x_fd_rx_event_msg rx_event_msg;
> > | struct es58x_fd_tx_ack_msg tx_ack_msg;
> > | __le64 timestamp;
> > | __le32 rx_cmd_ret_le32;
> > | u8 raw_msg[0];
> > | } __packed;
> > |
> > | __le16 reserved_for_crc16_do_not_use;
> > | } __packed;
> >
> > ram_msg can then be used to manipulate the other fields at the byte level.
> > I am sorry but I fail to understand why this is an issue.
>
> The issue is with using a 0-element array (these are being removed from
> the kernel[1] so we can add -Warray-bounds). Normally in this situation I
> would replace the 0-element array with a flexible array, but this
> case is unusual in several ways:
>
> - There is a trailing struct member (reserved_for_crc16_do_not_use),
> which is never accessed (good), and documented as "please never access
> this".
Yes. And FYI, this field is here so that
| sizeof(struct es58x_fd_urb_cmd)
returns the correct maximum size.
And, of course, because this structure will be sent to the
device, there is no possibility to reorder those fields.
> - struct es58x_fd_urb_cmd is statically allocated (it is written into
> from the URB handler).
>
> - The message lengths coming from the USB device are stored in a u16,
> which looked like it was possible to overflow the buffer.
>
> In taking a closer look, I see that the URB command length is checked,
> and the in-data length is checked as well, so the overflow concern
> appears to be addressed.
>
> > Also, the proposed fix drastically increases the size of the structure.
>
> Indeed. I will send a v2, now that I see that the overflow concern isn't
> an issue.
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.
At the end, the only goal of raw_msg[] is to have a tag pointing
to the beginning of the union. It would be virtually identical to
something like:
| u8 raw_msg[];
| union {
| /* ... */
| } __packed ;
I had a look at your work and especially at your struct_group() macro.
Do you think it would make sense to introduce a union_group()?
Result would look like:
| union_group_attr(urb_msg, __packed, /* raw_msg renamed to urb_msg */
| struct es58x_fd_tx_conf_msg tx_conf_msg;
| u8 tx_can_msg_buf[ES58X_FD_TX_BULK_MAX * ES58X_FD_CANFD_TX_LEN];
| u8 rx_can_msg_buf[ES58X_FD_RX_BULK_MAX * ES58X_FD_CANFD_RX_LEN];
| struct es58x_fd_echo_msg echo_msg[ES58X_FD_ECHO_BULK_MAX];
| struct es58x_fd_rx_event_msg rx_event_msg;
| struct es58x_fd_tx_ack_msg tx_ack_msg;
| __le64 timestamp;
| __le32 rx_cmd_ret_le32;
| );
And I can then use urb_msg in place of the old raw_msg (might
need a bit of rework here and there but I can take care of it).
This is the most pretty way I can think of to remove this zero length array.
Keeping the raw_msg[] but with another size seems odd to me.
Or maybe I would be the only one using this feature in the full
tree? In that case, maybe it would make sense to keep the
union_group_attr() macro local to the etas_es58x driver?
Yours sincerely,
Vincent
