Linux Hardening
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>,
	Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
	Manikanta Pubbisetty <quic_mpubbise@quicinc.com>
Cc: ath10k@lists.infradead.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC - is this a bug?] wifi: ath10k: Asking for some light on this, please :)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:06:58 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e19b9dcc-99d0-414d-95ef-69149daedaa9@embeddedor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <626ae2e7-66f8-423b-b17f-e75c1a6d29b3@embeddedor.com>

[+CC Manikanta Pubbisetty ]

As Johannes[1] pointed out, this `memset()` is probably unnecessary:

./drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
8920         memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd));

However, the same exact issue[2] is present at the line below inside
function `ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb()`:

drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
1799         memset(skb->data, 0, round_len);


Thanks
--
Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/26b15f4702cef17fe70b496a62f03735874bd16a.camel@sipsolutions.net/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/07e9bb04-f9fc-46d5-bfb9-a00a63a707c0@embeddedor.com/

On 10/24/23 13:50, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> While working on tranforming one-element array `peer_chan_list` in
> `struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities` into a flex-array member
> 
> 7187 struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities {
> ...
> 7199         struct wmi_channel peer_chan_list[1];
> 7200 } __packed;
> 
> the following line caught my attention:
> 
> ./drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
> 8920         memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd));
> 
> Notice that before the flex-array transformation, we are zeroing 128
> bytes in `skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 128`, see below:
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
>      __le32                     vdev_id;              /*     0     4 */
>      struct wmi_mac_addr        peer_macaddr;         /*     4     8 */
>      __le32                     peer_state;           /*    12     4 */
>      __le32                     reserved[4];          /*    16    16 */
>      struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab;    /*    32    96 */
> 
>      /* size: 128, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
> };
> 
> So, after the flex-array transformation (and the necessary adjustments
> to a few other lines of code) we would be zeroing 104 bytes in
> `skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 104`, see below:
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
>      __le32                     vdev_id;              /*     0     4 */
>      struct wmi_mac_addr        peer_macaddr;         /*     4     8 */
>      __le32                     peer_state;           /*    12     4 */
>      __le32                     reserved[4];          /*    16    16 */
>      struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab;    /*    32    72 */
> 
>      /* size: 104, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
>      /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
> };
> 
> This difference arises because the size of the element type for the
> `peer_chan_list` array, which is `sizeof(struct wmi_channel) == 24 `
> 
> $ pahole -C wmi_channel drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
> struct wmi_channel {
>      __le32                     mhz;                  /*     0     4 */
>      __le32                     band_center_freq1;    /*     4     4 */
>      __le32                     band_center_freq2;    /*     8     4 */
> 
> [..]
>                                                 /*    20     4 */
> 
>      /* size: 24, cachelines: 1, members: 6 */
>      /* last cacheline: 24 bytes */
> };
> 
> is included in `sizeof(*cmd)` before the transformation.
> 
> So, my question is: do we really need to zero out those extra 24 bytes in
> `skb->data`? or is it rather a bug in the original code?
> 
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Gustavo
> 
> 

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-10-25  1:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-24 19:50 [RFC - is this a bug?] wifi: ath10k: Asking for some light on this, please :) Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-24 20:11 ` Johannes Berg
2023-10-24 20:41   ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-24 20:49     ` Johannes Berg
2023-10-25  2:37       ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-25 15:52         ` Jeff Johnson
2023-12-12 23:26           ` Jeff Johnson
2023-10-25  1:06 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva [this message]

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=e19b9dcc-99d0-414d-95ef-69149daedaa9@embeddedor.com \
    --to=gustavo@embeddedor.com \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_mpubbise@quicinc.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox