On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 10:45 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 09:52:17AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Replace deprecated 0-length array in struct bpf_lpm_trie_key with
> > > flexible array. Found with GCC 13:
> > >
> > > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:207:51: warning: array subscript i is outside array bounds of 'const __u8[0]' {aka 'const unsigned char[]'} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > > 207 | *(__be16 *)&key->data[i]);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ../include/uapi/linux/swab.h:102:54: note: in definition of macro '__swab16'
> > > 102 | #define __swab16(x) (__u16)__builtin_bswap16((__u16)(x))
> > > | ^
> > > ../include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:97:21: note: in expansion of macro '__be16_to_cpu'
> > > 97 | #define be16_to_cpu __be16_to_cpu
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ../kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c:206:28: note: in expansion of macro 'be16_to_cpu'
> > > 206 | u16 diff = be16_to_cpu(*(__be16 *)&node->data[i]
> > > ^
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > In file included from ../include/linux/bpf.h:7:
> > > ../include/uapi/linux/bpf.h:82:17: note: while referencing 'data'
> > > 82 | __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> > > | ^~~~
> > >
> > > This includes fixing the selftest which was incorrectly using a
> > > variable length struct as a header, identified earlier[1]. Avoid this
> > > by just explicitly including the prefixlen member instead of struct
> > > bpf_lpm_trie_key.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206281009.4332AA33@keescook/
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Hao Luo <haoluo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Haowen Bai <baihaowen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 2 +-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/map_ptr_kern.c | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > index ba0f0cfb5e42..5930bc5c7e2c 100644
> > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct bpf_insn {
> > > /* Key of an a BPF_MAP_TYPE_LPM_TRIE entry */
> > > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key {
> > > __u32 prefixlen; /* up to 32 for AF_INET, 128 for AF_INET6 */
> > > - __u8 data[0]; /* Arbitrary size */
> > > + __u8 data[]; /* Arbitrary size */
> > > };
> >
> > That's a UAPI change, can we do it? The safest option is probably just
> > to remove this field if it's causing any problems (and not do the
> > map_ptr_kern.c change below).
>
> The problem was seen because "data" is used by the kernel (see the
> compiler warning above). But if it can be removed, sure, that works too,
> and it much nicer since the resulting structs would have fixed sizes.
I guess I still don't understand why we need the change in map_ptr_kern.c?
Re-reading the description:
> > > This includes fixing the selftest which was incorrectly using a
> > > variable length struct as a header, identified earlier[1].
It's my understanding that it's the intended use-case. Users are
expected to use this struct as a header; at least we've been using it
that way :-)
For me, both return the same:
sizeof(struct { __u32 prefix; __u8 data[0]; })
sizeof(struct { __u32 prefix; __u8 data[]; })
So let's do s/data[0]/data[]/ in the UAPI only? What's wrong with
using this struct as a header?
> > The usual use-case (at least that's what we do) is to define some new
> > struct over it:
> >
> > struct my_key {
> > struct bpf_lpm_trie_key prefix;
> > int a, b, c;
> > };
> >
> > So I really doubt that the 'data' is ever touched by any programs at all..
>
> Horrible alternative:
>
> struct my_key {
> union {
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key trie;
> struct {
> u8 header[sizeof(struct bpf_lpm_trie_key)];
> int a, b, c;
> };
> };
> };
>
> Perhaps better might be:
>
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key {
> __u32 prefixlen; /* up to 32 for AF_INET, 128 for AF_INET6 */
> };
>
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_raw {
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_prefix prefix;
> u8 data[];
> };
>
> struct my_key {
> struct bpf_lpm_trie_key_prefix prefix;
> int a, b, c;
> };
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Kees Cook
