On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:31:54PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:27:32 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > > * struct trace_event_data_offsets_<call> {
> > > * u32 <item1>;
> > > * u32 <item2>;
> > > * [...]
> > > * };
> > > *
> > > * The __dynamic_array() macro will create each u32 <item>, this is
> > > * to keep the offset of each array from the beginning of the event.
> > > * The size of an array is also encoded, in the higher 16 bits of
> > > * <item>.
> > > */
> > >
> > > So, I think -Warray-bounds is refusing to see the destination as
> > > anything except a u32, but being accessed at 4 (sizeof(u32)) + 8
> > > (address && 0xffff) (?)
> >
> > Ah, I got it. Yes, that's right. __data_loc() will access the data
> > from the __entry, but the __rel_loc() points the same address from
> > the encoded field ("__rel_loc_foo" in this case) itself.
> > This is introduced for the user application event, which doesn't
> > know the actual __entry size because the __entry includes some
> > kernel internal defined fields.
> >
> > > But if this is true, I would imagine there would be plenty of other
> > > warnings? I'm currently stumped.
> >
> > That is because __rel_loc is used only in the sample code in the kernel
> > for testing. Other use-cases comes from user-space.
> > Hmm, can we skip this boundary check for this example?
>
> If the -Warray-bounds determines the destination array size from
> the type of given pointer, we can just change the macro as below;
>
> #define __get_rel_dynamic_array(field)
> ((void *)__entry + \
> offsetof(typeof(*__entry), __rel_loc_##field) + \
> sizeof(__entry->__rel_loc_##field) + \
> (__entry->__rel_loc_##field & 0xffff))
>
> This must works same as __get_dynamic_array() macro.
>
> Could you try this patch?
Thanks, I'll give this a spin. I need to reproduce sfr's warning first,
but now that I've fetched next-20220125, it should be easy. *famous last
words*
--
Kees Cook
