Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] string.h: Introduce memset_range() for wiping members

[xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@huawei.com>]

在 2021/12/9 13:17, Kees Cook 写道:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 03:44:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:30:26 +0800 xiujianfeng <xiujianfeng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 在 2021/12/8 12:28, Andrew Morton 写道:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:04:50 +0800 Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Motivated by memset_after() and memset_startat(), introduce a new helper,
>>>>> memset_range() that takes the target struct instance, the byte to write,
>>>>> and two member names where zeroing should start and end.
>>>> Is this likely to have more than a single call site?
>>> There maybe more call site for this function, but I just use bpf as an
>>> example.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/string.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/string.h
>>>>> @@ -291,6 +291,26 @@ void memcpy_and_pad(void *dest, size_t dest_len, const void *src, size_t count,
>>>>>    	       sizeof(*(obj)) - offsetof(typeof(*(obj)), member));	\
>>>>>    })
>>>>>    
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * memset_range - Set a value ranging from member1 to member2, boundary included.
>>>> I'm not sure what "boundary included" means.
>>> I mean zeroing from member1 to member2(including position indicated by
>>> member1 and member2)
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @obj: Address of target struct instance
>>>>> + * @v: Byte value to repeatedly write
>>>>> + * @member1: struct member to start writing at
>>>>> + * @member2: struct member where writing should stop
>>>> Perhaps "struct member before which writing should stop"?
>>> memset_range should include position indicated by member2 as well
>> In that case we could say "struct member where writing should stop
>> (inclusive)", to make it very clear.
>>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define memset_range(obj, v, member_1, member_2)			\
>>>>> +({									\
>>>>> +	u8 *__ptr = (u8 *)(obj);					\
>>>>> +	typeof(v) __val = (v);						\
>>>>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(typeof(*(obj)), member_1) >		\
>>>>> +		     offsetof(typeof(*(obj)), member_2));		\
>>>>> +	memset(__ptr + offsetof(typeof(*(obj)), member_1), __val,	\
>>>>> +	       offsetofend(typeof(*(obj)), member_2) -			\
>>>>> +	       offsetof(typeof(*(obj)), member_1));			\
>>>>> +})
>>>> struct a {
>>>> 	int b;
>>>> 	int c;
>>>> 	int d;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> How do I zero out `c' and `d'?
>>> if you want to zero out 'c' and 'd', you can use it like
>>> memset_range(a_ptr, c, d);
>> But I don't think that's what the code does!
>>
>> it expands to
>>
>> 	memset(__ptr + offsetof(typeof(*(a)), c), __val,
>> 	       offsetofend(typeof(*(a)), d) -
>> 	       offsetof(typeof(*(a)), c));
>>
>> which expands to
>>
>> 	memset(__ptr + 4, __val,
>> 	       8 -
>> 	       4);
>>
>> and `d' will not be written to.
> Please don't add memset_range(): just use a struct_group() to capture
> the range and use memset() against the new substruct. This will allow
> for the range to be documented where it is defined in the struct (rather
> than deep in some code), keep any changes centralized instead of spread
> around in memset_range() calls, protect against accidental struct member
> reordering breaking things, and lets the compiler be able to examine
> the range explicitly and do all the correct bounds checking:
>
> struct a {
> 	int b;
> 	struct_group(range,
> 		int c;
> 		int d;
> 	);
> 	int e;
> };
>
> memset(&instance->range, 0, sizeof(instance->range));
>
> memset_from/after() were added because of the very common case of "wipe
> from here to end", which stays tied to a single member, and addressed
> cases where struct_group() couldn't help (e.g. trailing padding).
got it, thank you, I will drop this patch.