From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] rds: avoid potential stack overflow
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:46:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4321699.nNdBmxDHpu@wuerfel> (raw)
The rds_iw_update_cm_id function stores a large 'struct rds_sock' object
on the stack in order to pass a pair of addresses. This happens to just
fit withint the 1024 byte stack size warning limit on x86, but just
exceed that limit on ARM, which gives us this warning:
net/rds/iw_rdma.c:200:1: warning: the frame size of 1056 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
As the use of this large variable is basically bogus, we can rearrange
the code to not do that. Instead of passing an rds socket into
rds_iw_get_device, we now just pass the two addresses that we have
available in rds_iw_update_cm_id, and we change rds_iw_get_mr accordingly,
to create two address structures on the stack there.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
v2: fix incorrect commit message
diff --git a/net/rds/iw_rdma.c b/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
index a817705ce2d0..dba8d0864f18 100644
--- a/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
+++ b/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
@@ -88,7 +88,9 @@ static unsigned int rds_iw_unmap_fastreg_list(struct rds_iw_mr_pool *pool,
int *unpinned);
static void rds_iw_destroy_fastreg(struct rds_iw_mr_pool *pool, struct rds_iw_mr *ibmr);
-static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwdev, struct rdma_cm_id **cm_id)
+static int rds_iw_get_device(struct sockaddr_in *src, struct sockaddr_in *dst,
+ struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwdev,
+ struct rdma_cm_id **cm_id)
{
struct rds_iw_device *iwdev;
struct rds_iw_cm_id *i_cm_id;
@@ -112,15 +114,15 @@ static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwd
src_addr->sin_port,
dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr,
dst_addr->sin_port,
- rs->rs_bound_addr,
- rs->rs_bound_port,
- rs->rs_conn_addr,
- rs->rs_conn_port);
+ src->sin_addr.s_addr,
+ src->sin_port,
+ dst->sin_addr.s_addr,
+ dst->sin_port);
#ifdef WORKING_TUPLE_DETECTION
- if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_bound_addr &&
- src_addr->sin_port == rs->rs_bound_port &&
- dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_conn_addr &&
- dst_addr->sin_port == rs->rs_conn_port) {
+ if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == src->sin_addr.s_addr &&
+ src_addr->sin_port == src->sin_port &&
+ dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == dst->sin_addr.s_addr &&
+ dst_addr->sin_port == dst->sin_port) {
#else
/* FIXME - needs to compare the local and remote
* ipaddr/port tuple, but the ipaddr is the only
@@ -128,7 +130,7 @@ static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwd
* zero'ed. It doesn't appear to be properly populated
* during connection setup...
*/
- if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_bound_addr) {
+ if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == src->sin_addr.s_addr) {
#endif
spin_unlock_irq(&iwdev->spinlock);
*rds_iwdev = iwdev;
@@ -180,19 +182,13 @@ int rds_iw_update_cm_id(struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev, struct rdma_cm_id *cm_i
{
struct sockaddr_in *src_addr, *dst_addr;
struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev_old;
- struct rds_sock rs;
struct rdma_cm_id *pcm_id;
int rc;
src_addr = (struct sockaddr_in *)&cm_id->route.addr.src_addr;
dst_addr = (struct sockaddr_in *)&cm_id->route.addr.dst_addr;
- rs.rs_bound_addr = src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr;
- rs.rs_bound_port = src_addr->sin_port;
- rs.rs_conn_addr = dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr;
- rs.rs_conn_port = dst_addr->sin_port;
-
- rc = rds_iw_get_device(&rs, &rds_iwdev_old, &pcm_id);
+ rc = rds_iw_get_device(src_addr, dst_addr, &rds_iwdev_old, &pcm_id);
if (rc)
rds_iw_remove_cm_id(rds_iwdev, cm_id);
@@ -598,9 +594,17 @@ void *rds_iw_get_mr(struct scatterlist *sg, unsigned long nents,
struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev;
struct rds_iw_mr *ibmr = NULL;
struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id;
+ struct sockaddr_in src = {
+ .sin_addr.s_addr = rs->rs_bound_addr,
+ .sin_port = rs->rs_bound_port,
+ };
+ struct sockaddr_in dst = {
+ .sin_addr.s_addr = rs->rs_conn_addr,
+ .sin_port = rs->rs_conn_port,
+ };
int ret;
- ret = rds_iw_get_device(rs, &rds_iwdev, &cm_id);
+ ret = rds_iw_get_device(&src, &dst, &rds_iwdev, &cm_id);
if (ret || !cm_id) {
ret = -ENODEV;
goto out;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: roland@purestorage.com, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chien.yen@oracle.com,
sowmini.varadhan@oracle.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: [PATCH v2] rds: avoid potential stack overflow
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:46:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4321699.nNdBmxDHpu@wuerfel> (raw)
The rds_iw_update_cm_id function stores a large 'struct rds_sock' object
on the stack in order to pass a pair of addresses. This happens to just
fit withint the 1024 byte stack size warning limit on x86, but just
exceed that limit on ARM, which gives us this warning:
net/rds/iw_rdma.c:200:1: warning: the frame size of 1056 bytes is larger than 1024 bytes [-Wframe-larger-than=]
As the use of this large variable is basically bogus, we can rearrange
the code to not do that. Instead of passing an rds socket into
rds_iw_get_device, we now just pass the two addresses that we have
available in rds_iw_update_cm_id, and we change rds_iw_get_mr accordingly,
to create two address structures on the stack there.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
v2: fix incorrect commit message
diff --git a/net/rds/iw_rdma.c b/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
index a817705ce2d0..dba8d0864f18 100644
--- a/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
+++ b/net/rds/iw_rdma.c
@@ -88,7 +88,9 @@ static unsigned int rds_iw_unmap_fastreg_list(struct rds_iw_mr_pool *pool,
int *unpinned);
static void rds_iw_destroy_fastreg(struct rds_iw_mr_pool *pool, struct rds_iw_mr *ibmr);
-static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwdev, struct rdma_cm_id **cm_id)
+static int rds_iw_get_device(struct sockaddr_in *src, struct sockaddr_in *dst,
+ struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwdev,
+ struct rdma_cm_id **cm_id)
{
struct rds_iw_device *iwdev;
struct rds_iw_cm_id *i_cm_id;
@@ -112,15 +114,15 @@ static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwd
src_addr->sin_port,
dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr,
dst_addr->sin_port,
- rs->rs_bound_addr,
- rs->rs_bound_port,
- rs->rs_conn_addr,
- rs->rs_conn_port);
+ src->sin_addr.s_addr,
+ src->sin_port,
+ dst->sin_addr.s_addr,
+ dst->sin_port);
#ifdef WORKING_TUPLE_DETECTION
- if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_bound_addr &&
- src_addr->sin_port == rs->rs_bound_port &&
- dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_conn_addr &&
- dst_addr->sin_port == rs->rs_conn_port) {
+ if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == src->sin_addr.s_addr &&
+ src_addr->sin_port == src->sin_port &&
+ dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == dst->sin_addr.s_addr &&
+ dst_addr->sin_port == dst->sin_port) {
#else
/* FIXME - needs to compare the local and remote
* ipaddr/port tuple, but the ipaddr is the only
@@ -128,7 +130,7 @@ static int rds_iw_get_device(struct rds_sock *rs, struct rds_iw_device **rds_iwd
* zero'ed. It doesn't appear to be properly populated
* during connection setup...
*/
- if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == rs->rs_bound_addr) {
+ if (src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr == src->sin_addr.s_addr) {
#endif
spin_unlock_irq(&iwdev->spinlock);
*rds_iwdev = iwdev;
@@ -180,19 +182,13 @@ int rds_iw_update_cm_id(struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev, struct rdma_cm_id *cm_i
{
struct sockaddr_in *src_addr, *dst_addr;
struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev_old;
- struct rds_sock rs;
struct rdma_cm_id *pcm_id;
int rc;
src_addr = (struct sockaddr_in *)&cm_id->route.addr.src_addr;
dst_addr = (struct sockaddr_in *)&cm_id->route.addr.dst_addr;
- rs.rs_bound_addr = src_addr->sin_addr.s_addr;
- rs.rs_bound_port = src_addr->sin_port;
- rs.rs_conn_addr = dst_addr->sin_addr.s_addr;
- rs.rs_conn_port = dst_addr->sin_port;
-
- rc = rds_iw_get_device(&rs, &rds_iwdev_old, &pcm_id);
+ rc = rds_iw_get_device(src_addr, dst_addr, &rds_iwdev_old, &pcm_id);
if (rc)
rds_iw_remove_cm_id(rds_iwdev, cm_id);
@@ -598,9 +594,17 @@ void *rds_iw_get_mr(struct scatterlist *sg, unsigned long nents,
struct rds_iw_device *rds_iwdev;
struct rds_iw_mr *ibmr = NULL;
struct rdma_cm_id *cm_id;
+ struct sockaddr_in src = {
+ .sin_addr.s_addr = rs->rs_bound_addr,
+ .sin_port = rs->rs_bound_port,
+ };
+ struct sockaddr_in dst = {
+ .sin_addr.s_addr = rs->rs_conn_addr,
+ .sin_port = rs->rs_conn_port,
+ };
int ret;
- ret = rds_iw_get_device(rs, &rds_iwdev, &cm_id);
+ ret = rds_iw_get_device(&src, &dst, &rds_iwdev, &cm_id);
if (ret || !cm_id) {
ret = -ENODEV;
goto out;
next reply other threads:[~2015-03-11 21:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-11 21:46 Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2015-03-11 21:46 ` [PATCH v2] rds: avoid potential stack overflow Arnd Bergmann
2015-03-11 21:50 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-03-11 21:50 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2015-03-12 4:28 ` David Miller
2015-03-12 4:28 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4321699.nNdBmxDHpu@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.