Re: [PATCH 01/64] media: omap3isp: Extract struct group for memcpy() region

Kees Cook
2021-07-30T06:00:54Z

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:20:39AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 07:56:27AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 11:37:30PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 02:37:20PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On 7/28/21 2:14 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 10:59:22AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > >>> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c | 5 +--
> > > > >>> include/uapi/linux/omap3isp.h | 44 +++++++++++++++++------
> > > > >>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > > >>> index 5b9b57f4d9bf..ea8222fed38e 100644
> > > > >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > > >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/ispstat.c
> > > > >>> @@ -512,7 +512,7 @@ int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics(struct ispstat *stat,
> > > > >>> int omap3isp_stat_request_statistics_time32(struct ispstat *stat,
> > > > >>> struct omap3isp_stat_data_time32 *data)
> > > > >>> {
> > > > >>> - struct omap3isp_stat_data data64;
> > > > >>> + struct omap3isp_stat_data data64 = { };
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Should this be { 0 } ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We've seen patches trying to switch from { 0 } to { } but the answer
> > > > >> was that { 0 } is supposed to be used,
> > > > >> http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/random/initialise.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >> (from https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/fbddb15a-6e46-3f21-23ba-b18f66e3448a@suse.com/ )
> > > > >
> > > > > In the kernel we don't care about portability so much. Use the = { }
> > > > > GCC extension. If the first member of the struct is a pointer then
> > > > > Sparse will complain about = { 0 }.
> > > >
> > > > +1 for { }.
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought the tendency is is to use { 0 } because that can also
> > > intialize the compound members, by a "scalar 0" as it appears in the
> > > code.
> > >
> >
> > Holes in the structure might not be initialized to anything if you do
> > either one of these as well.
> >
> > Or did we finally prove that is not the case? I can not remember
> > anymore...
>
> Yep. The C11 spec says that struct holes are initialized.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200731140452.GE24045@ziepe.ca/

This is, unfortunately, misleading. The frustrating key word is
"partial" in "updated in C11 to require zero'ing padding when doing
partial initialization of aggregates". If one initializes _all_ the
struct members ... the padding doesn't get initialized. :( (And until
recently, _trailing_ padding wasn't getting initialized even when other
paddings were.)

I've tried to collect all the different ways the compiler might initialize
a variable in this test:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/tree/lib/test_stackinit.c?h=for-next/kspp

FWIW, there's no difference between -std=gnu99 and -std=c11, and the
test shows that padding is _not_ universally initialized (unless your
compiler supports -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero, which Clang does, and
GCC will shortly[1]). Running this with GCC 10.3.0, I see this...

As expected, having no initializer leaves padding (as well as members)
uninitialized:

stackinit: small_hole_none FAIL (uninit bytes: 24)
stackinit: big_hole_none FAIL (uninit bytes: 128)
stackinit: trailing_hole_none FAIL (uninit bytes: 32)

Here, "zero" means "= { };" and they get padding initialized:

stackinit: small_hole_zero ok
stackinit: big_hole_zero ok
stackinit: trailing_hole_zero ok

Here, "static_partial" means "= { .one_member = 0 };", and
"dynamic_partial" means "= { .one_member = some_variable };". These are
similarly initialized:

stackinit: small_hole_static_partial ok
stackinit: big_hole_static_partial ok
stackinit: trailing_hole_static_partial ok

stackinit: small_hole_dynamic_partial ok
stackinit: big_hole_dynamic_partial ok
stackinit: trailing_hole_dynamic_partial ok

But when _all_ members are initialized, the padding is _not_:

stackinit: small_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: big_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: trailing_hole_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)

stackinit: small_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: big_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: trailing_hole_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)

As expected, assigning to members outside of initialization leaves
padding uninitialized:

stackinit: small_hole_runtime_partial FAIL (uninit bytes: 23)
stackinit: big_hole_runtime_partial FAIL (uninit bytes: 127)
stackinit: trailing_hole_runtime_partial FAIL (uninit bytes: 24)

stackinit: small_hole_runtime_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: big_hole_runtime_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: trailing_hole_runtime_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)

> What doesn't initialize struct holes is assignments:
>
> struct foo foo = *bar;

Right. Object to object assignments do not clear padding:

stackinit: small_hole_assigned_copy XFAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: big_hole_assigned_copy XFAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: trailing_hole_assigned_copy XFAIL (uninit bytes: 7)

And whole-object assignments of cast initializers follow the pattern of
basic initializers, which makes sense given the behavior of initializers
and direct assignment tests above. e.g.:
obj = (type){ .member = ... };

stackinit: small_hole_assigned_static_partial ok
stackinit: small_hole_assigned_dynamic_partial ok
stackinit: big_hole_assigned_dynamic_partial ok
stackinit: big_hole_assigned_static_partial ok
stackinit: trailing_hole_assigned_dynamic_partial ok
stackinit: trailing_hole_assigned_static_partial ok

stackinit: small_hole_assigned_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: small_hole_assigned_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 3)
stackinit: big_hole_assigned_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: big_hole_assigned_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 124)
stackinit: trailing_hole_assigned_dynamic_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)
stackinit: trailing_hole_assigned_static_all FAIL (uninit bytes: 7)

So, yeah, it's not very stable.

-Kees

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/576341.html

--
Kees Cook