On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:56:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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.
That would be better, yes.
> + memset_starting(item, 0, generation_v2);
memset_from?
