From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AF9554BCF for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706518025; cv=none; b=tVWR+XjowkvFWVADcLQvxvjDNyrp5DXUkt1ZX2YdjjMVk0sB+S1D4qTn3dx7u4lyqmv2kNs97mRGlA25u/ikr8vglfbaUAowYkjsXnoiv5bR5ObTMh8RBTjnBwD7W7JZ6Ud79Z9ZkhnPLxpDy6+yGT2kQzSVOrI27k1UO/SS5p4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706518025; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wan+/40Gb1SyAcbTJJKFngUv3lxpedgrk4APeSN8y8k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=ORD2Ah7i9CmfglBSrfm+0Vn4nJKCWDr54QmzHW0fPAsbqUeFn5hxyggtHKC8T/LrWLhJHrE39mnf/REihS+QR9G7xg6ZdUcCaLhbj2w/jGlo8U+8DPfqinqps0+vwFzT4FD73TUXHCf28oubJh+u5E2ALfEbY+nSikCHA4rvQzk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=gXhNJaws; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="gXhNJaws" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1706518023; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mHx98I53Z/x+UcJL2CQPXiS0oxn65PZb6tI9zRyZW1E=; b=gXhNJawsOJ+eIei3mAZpxm9yxL3RCo2IoBJc47iQSQ6PUtS7fUo8dr6ZKjc7EyQQcz1Ayp 0xDryY6fK4UcZmQU1JEHvuR1sLU2n7X4tIUTzitveMaHUBqo2o34s09QmTMPGTyDW0HhG3 3AdYTYoDITdZaaMoeucn+0+nESdC9ok= Received: from mail-wr1-f71.google.com (mail-wr1-f71.google.com [209.85.221.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-613-wXH0LqnKPWuX26YNzXf5AQ-1; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:47:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: wXH0LqnKPWuX26YNzXf5AQ-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f71.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-33ae7482b2dso531369f8f.0 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:47:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706518020; x=1707122820; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=mHx98I53Z/x+UcJL2CQPXiS0oxn65PZb6tI9zRyZW1E=; b=smuO3wiRTQgSa4sHB6ItA8WFPh5V+XEgws/Q04b50KfQDiQhgDLrayv/dKW3SRaMmv Kmc8pj/D8bt1KuC6EsnpX8tmrNlizwPf8vKmLd1KBc7EEkOciu5zhjsry+mZVFuNgB55 DWU9jgovs8giD3NoXmhvLNSNLlc3sxI/rL2YGVjEBZyDsXfgltJLhw1+UfKJbib/1Hb5 +IDgr2IwwuxmkmikqsqeI4QVDO69ZMVY2D4Q8/zr0MZr0f9eg03r7A9qZMEq2QhqcL7v W/+p7JreUZfQdDPiG2dLo1aAyHLbj1ljBCSu5P4U2GXZHeeyh6+ANY+GHsqrprCIGCUC A3Kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyninYfPyhfHbocGTh+U6mEikCi8HFF2iL7PV6VpkQskErIXea3 YtNhIlrnyBanB3NYvg30ECbZh+Q+mcs7LvAXd/27879IAkE1zMgyXw7uqEjX8TvFLHUgszBHk6g mt/vpKiYMRXf5qyuZZBqSD343MnznfFiRr6L4Kyb0vgv8qV9aFxw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:710:b0:33a:f399:5de3 with SMTP id bs16-20020a056000071000b0033af3995de3mr576162wrb.39.1706518020229; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:47:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEwh3LLMODSTkeFeUAQPUxU73Kw1Df+2FZWQ7IIt52Rgmjhp3f7mup1S9zJyIE8dHYQ33LIqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:710:b0:33a:f399:5de3 with SMTP id bs16-20020a056000071000b0033af3995de3mr576145wrb.39.1706518019789; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:46:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com ([2.52.129.159]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bp19-20020a5d5a93000000b003394495566dsm7571525wrb.22.2024.01.29.00.46.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:46:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 03:46:55 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, keescook@chromium.org, arei.gonglei@huawei.com, jasowang@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, zhenwei pi Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/286] 5.10.209-rc1 review Message-ID: <20240129034304-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20240122235732.009174833@linuxfoundation.org> <6b563537-b62f-428e-96d1-2a228da99077@roeck-us.net> <2024012636-clubbed-radial-1997@gregkh> <2f342268-8517-4c06-8785-96a588d20c63@roeck-us.net> <20240126203436.GA913905@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <0a194a79-e3a3-45e7-be98-83abd3e1cb7e@roeck-us.net> <20240126223554.GA1320833@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:55:02PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 1/26/24 14:35, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > (slimming up the CC list, I don't think this is too relevant to the > > wider stable community) > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 01:01:15PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On 1/26/24 12:34, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:17:23AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > On 1/26/24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:46:42AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/22/24 15:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.209 release. > > > > > > > > There are 286 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > > > > > > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > > > > > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Responses should be made by Wed, 24 Jan 2024 23:56:49 +0000. > > > > > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zhenwei pi > > > > > > > > virtio-crypto: implement RSA algorithm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious: Why was this (and its subsequent fixes) backported to v5.10.y ? > > > > > > > It is quite beyond a bug fix. Also, unless I am really missing something, > > > > > > > the series (or at least this patch) was not applied to v5.15.y, so we now > > > > > > > have functionality in v5.10.y which is not in v5.15.y. > > > > > > > > > > > > See the commit text, it was a dependency of a later fix and documented > > > > > > as such. > > > > > > > > > > > > Having it in 5.10 and not 5.15 is a bit odd, I agree, so patches are > > > > > > gladly accepted :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We reverted the entire series from the merge because it results in a build > > > > > failure for us. > > > > > > > > > > In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_akcipher_algs.c:10: > > > > > In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/mpi.h:21: > > > > > In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/scatterlist.h:5: > > > > > In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/string.h:293: > > > > > /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/fortify-string.h:512:4: error: call to __read_overflow2_field declared with 'warning' attribute: detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror,-Wattribute-warning] > > > > > __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size); > > > > > > > > For what it's worth, this is likely self inflicted for chromeos-5.10, > > > > which carries a revert of commit eaafc590053b ("fortify: Explicitly > > > > disable Clang support") as commit c19861d34c003 ("CHROMIUM: Revert > > > > "fortify: Explicitly disable Clang support""). I don't see the series > > > > that added proper support for clang to fortify in 5.18 that ended with > > > > commit 281d0c962752 ("fortify: Add Clang support") in that ChromeOS > > > > branch, so this seems somewhat expected. > > > > > > > > > > That explains that ;-). I don't mind if the patches stay in v5.10.y, > > > we have them reverted anyway. > > > > > > The revert was a pure process issue, as you may see when looking into > > > commit c19861d34c003, so, yes, I agree that it is self-inflicted damage. > > > Still, that doesn't explain why the problem exists in 5.18+. > > > > > > > > I also see that upstream (starting with 6.1) when trying to build it with clang, > > > > > so I guess it is one of those bug-for-bug compatibility things. I really have > > > > > no idea what causes it, or why we don't see the problem when building > > > > > chromeos-6.1 or chromeos-6.6, but (so far) only with chromeos-5.10 after > > > > > merging 5.10.209 into it. Making things worse, the problem isn't _always_ > > > > > seen. Sometimes I can compile the file in 6.1.y without error, sometimes not. > > > > > I have no idea what triggers the problem. > > > > > > > > Have a .config that reproduces it on upstream? I have not personally > > > > seen this warning in my build matrix nor has our continuous-integration > > > > matrix (I don't see it in the warning output at the bottom but that > > > > could have missed something for some reason) in 6.1: > > > > > > > > > > The following command sequence reproduces the problem for me with all stable > > > branches starting with 5.18.y (plus mainline). > > > > > > rm -rf /tmp/crypto-build > > > mkdir /tmp/crypto-build > > > make -j CC=clang-15 mrproper >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > make -j O=/tmp/crypto-build CC=clang-15 allmodconfig >/dev/null 2>&1 > > > make -j O=/tmp/crypto-build W=1 CC=clang-15 drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_akcipher_algs.o > > > > > > I tried clang versions 14, 15, and 16. This is with my home system running > > > Ubuntu 22.04, no ChromeOS or Google specifics/internals involved. For clang-15, > > > the version is > > > > > > Ubuntu clang version 15.0.7 > > > Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu > > > Thread model: posix > > > InstalledDir: /usr/bin > > > > Okay interesting, this warning is hidden behind W=1, which our CI does > > not test with. Looks like it has been that way since the introduction of > > these checks in f68f2ff91512 ("fortify: Detect struct member overflows > > in memcpy() at compile-time"). > > > > Interestingly the warning is seen in chromeos-5.10, without this patch, > and without W=1. I guess that must have to do with the revert which is > finally biting us. > > > I think this is a legitimate warning though. It is complaining about the > > second memcpy() in virtio_crypto_alg_akcipher_init_session(): > > > > memcpy(&ctrl->u, para, sizeof(ctrl->u)); > > > > where ctrl is: > > > > struct virtio_crypto_op_ctrl_req { > > struct virtio_crypto_ctrl_header header; /* 0 16 */ > > union { > > struct virtio_crypto_sym_create_session_req sym_create_session; /* 16 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_hash_create_session_req hash_create_session; /* 16 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_mac_create_session_req mac_create_session; /* 16 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_aead_create_session_req aead_create_session; /* 16 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_akcipher_create_session_req akcipher_create_session; /* 16 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_destroy_session_req destroy_session; /* 16 56 */ > > __u8 padding[56]; /* 16 56 */ > > } u; /* 16 56 */ > > union { > > struct virtio_crypto_sym_create_session_req sym_create_session; /* 0 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_hash_create_session_req hash_create_session; /* 0 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_mac_create_session_req mac_create_session; /* 0 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_aead_create_session_req aead_create_session; /* 0 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_akcipher_create_session_req akcipher_create_session; /* 0 56 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_destroy_session_req destroy_session; /* 0 56 */ > > __u8 padding[56]; /* 0 56 */ > > }; > > > > > > /* size: 72, cachelines: 2, members: 2 */ > > /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */ > > }; > > > > (so size and p_size_field should be 56) and the type of the para > > parameter in virtio_crypto_alg_akcipher_init_session() is 'void *' but > > the para passed by reference to > > virtio_crypto_alg_akcipher_init_session() in virtio_crypto_rsa_set_key() > > has a type of 'struct virtio_crypto_akcipher_session_para': > > > > struct virtio_crypto_akcipher_session_para { > > __le32 algo; /* 0 4 */ > > __le32 keytype; /* 4 4 */ > > __le32 keylen; /* 8 4 */ > > union { > > struct virtio_crypto_rsa_session_para rsa; /* 12 8 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_ecdsa_session_para ecdsa; /* 12 8 */ > > } u; /* 12 8 */ > > union { > > struct virtio_crypto_rsa_session_para rsa; /* 0 8 */ > > struct virtio_crypto_ecdsa_session_para ecdsa; /* 0 8 */ > > }; > > > > > > /* size: 20, cachelines: 1, members: 4 */ > > /* last cacheline: 20 bytes */ > > }; > > > > (so q_size_field would be 20 if clang were able to do inlining to see > > through the 'void *'...?), which would result in the > > > > __compiletime_lessthan(q_size_field, size) > > > > check succeeding and triggering the warning because 20 < 56, so it does > > seem like there is an overread of the source buffer here? Adding the > > Looks like it; I think either the passed 'para' should be of type > virtio_crypto_akcipher_create_session_req() or it should only copy > sizeof(struct virtio_crypto_akcipher_session_para) bytes. > > Anyway, how did you find that ? Is there a magic trick to find the > actual code causing the warning ? I am asking because we had seen > similar warnings before, and it would help to know how to find the > problematic code. > > Thanks, > Guenter Cc: zhenwei pi Zhenwei I think you wrote most of the code here. Can you take a look please? Stack overflows are plus plus ungood. > > maintainers of the driver and subsystem in question. > > > > Cheers, > > Nathan