On 2/18/23 1:57 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> The "cplen" result used by the memcpy() into struct rvt_swqe "wqe" may
> be sized to 80 for struct rvt_ud_wr (which is member "ud_wr", not "wr"
> which is only 40 bytes in size). Change the destination union member so
> the compiler can use the correct bounds check.
>
> struct rvt_swqe {
> union {
> struct ib_send_wr wr; /* don't use wr.sg_list */
> struct rvt_ud_wr ud_wr;
> ...
> };
> ...
> };
>
> Silences false positive memcpy() run-time warning:
>
> memcpy: detected field-spanning write (size 80) of single field "&wqe->wr" at drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c:2043 (size 40)
>
> Reported-by: Zhang Yi <yizhan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216561
> Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> index 3acab569fbb9..3f707e1fa517 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rdmavt/qp.c
> @@ -2040,7 +2040,7 @@ static int rvt_post_one_wr(struct rvt_qp *qp,
> wqe = rvt_get_swqe_ptr(qp, qp->s_head);
>
> /* cplen has length from above */
> - memcpy(&wqe->wr, wr, cplen);
> + memcpy(&wqe->ud_wr, wr, cplen);
>
> wqe->length = 0;
> j = 0;
Thanks for the patch. We've been debating this issue internally since last week.
The problem I have is this makes it look like everything is a "UD" req when it
could be a different QP type. Maybe we just need a comment explaining.
-Denny
