On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 11:41:07AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:47:29PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 03:54:55PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:31:38PM -0800, 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() to zero the end of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should
> > > > be initialized.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 5 ++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > > index e636e954f6bf..af94c9fe8753 100644
> > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > > @@ -665,8 +665,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > > > /* User MR data */
> > > > struct mlx5_cache_ent *cache_ent;
> > > > struct ib_umem *umem;
> > > > -
> > > > - /* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> > > > + /* Everything after umem is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> > > > union {
> > > > /* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
> > > > struct {
> > > > @@ -718,7 +717,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > > > /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
> > > > static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
> > > > {
> > > > - memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
> > > > + memset_after(mr, 0, umem);
> > >
> > > I think that it is not equivalent change and you need "memset_after(mr, 0, cache_ent);"
> > > to clear umem pointer too.
> >
> > Kees?
>
> Oops, sorry, I missed the ealrier reply!
>
> I don't think that matches -- the original code wipes from the start of
> "out" to the end of the struct. "out" is the first thing in the union
> after "umem", so "umem" was not wiped before. I retained that behavior
> ("wipe everything after umem").
>
> Am I misunderstanding the desired behavior here?
Ah, it is this patch:
commit f0ae4afe3d35e67db042c58a52909e06262b740f
Author: Alaa Hleihel <alaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Nov 22 13:41:51 2021 +0200
RDMA/mlx5: Fix releasing unallocated memory in dereg MR flow
Which moved umem into the union that is causing the confusion
It hasn't quite made it to a rc release yet, so I suppose the answer
is to rebase this on that then it is as Leon says about cache_ent
Jason
