From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (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 1B60D29E00 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1669E2690 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bc63ef9959so10926545ad.2 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; t=1691692306; x=1692297106; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NRu5f/aCaNR7Qpd/C7QF+nwdA4/ZGiMpJZ4g0pj/koI=; b=exUC1YmUgaJK8xNE59qi6sgwc1o8df+FleF0y7jxgEHwbhiyyvm8Zhv3VcrEuZGxPY jY9Bc2bZFTJOemXPLDAQWt5/ThKn3uUeS1rlrBzAgvfAM2H/opLXONw4vgGZz9ntcYps rrdJnMvIsw+XBZcetaMgLhBoFIOCKq47ScnEQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691692306; x=1692297106; 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=NRu5f/aCaNR7Qpd/C7QF+nwdA4/ZGiMpJZ4g0pj/koI=; b=jJN7a18887DroBAwImPXmzOh6E98itvaPKdUBtlAjLydQ+LhZ6yDouSI4VLQSmSVzF KzOB7pV6HTd7TzMuvREO037txzqQGGHAFD0Tux1zRkUTFfutqT4k6MSeMolpfeKOxcsP SXVyCuOK8KV6heJ/vD9LWDEaIRF+eYA4bIKiwawglvGnfqY8tRolgyGgSXWYxkGZqNGT 9vJAKCN6QtMAxBLnUmHZLRG0ouN+Adlknbr2dchKWUKdjy0aja+mkTD6Q0+lNS4oGjhx LSKwTiKBmrcGIs2RNJU6IsrRTH+/ugnrSEIZmHDdANDnLrMonMeNAidxyXRrsSFgbxy5 cDOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwRvWY9t/3uk7TmDNWrVgTINE5wRUXXDowdzjj2LJQrMUVXFcE3 ddcxyh5oiEdpnVHbhr323eju/nG5yU0yXroeBcc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHHObZZyY9Or/OTawwzOxroUBnHrJSBanqV1Yfo/0w0RduYz4qwgfpa6K1IKDxG+5xqeFlspQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:da92:b0:1bb:1494:f7f7 with SMTP id j18-20020a170902da9200b001bb1494f7f7mr3698148plx.23.1691692306542; Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (198-0-35-241-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [198.0.35.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20-20020a170902ea9400b001b9de67285dsm2103416plb.156.2023.08.10.11.31.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:31:45 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Alexander Lobakin Cc: Przemek Kitszel , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jacob Keller , intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Steven Zou Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/7] overflow: add DEFINE_FLEX() for on-stack allocs Message-ID: <202308101128.C4F0FA235@keescook> References: <20230810103509.163225-1-przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com> <20230810103509.163225-2-przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 06:24:47PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > From: Przemek Kitszel > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 06:35:03 -0400 > > > Add DEFINE_FLEX() macro for on-stack allocations of structs with > > flexible array member. > > > > Add also const_flex_size() macro, that reads size of structs > > allocated by DEFINE_FLEX(). > > > > Using underlying array for on-stack storage lets us to declare > > known-at-compile-time structures without kzalloc(). > > > > Actual usage for ice driver is in following patches of the series. > > > > Signed-off-by: Przemek Kitszel > > --- > > v1: change macro name; add macro for size read; > > accept struct type instead of ptr to it; change alignment; > > --- > > include/linux/overflow.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/overflow.h b/include/linux/overflow.h > > index f9b60313eaea..21a4410799eb 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/overflow.h > > +++ b/include/linux/overflow.h > > @@ -309,4 +309,31 @@ static inline size_t __must_check size_sub(size_t minuend, size_t subtrahend) > > #define struct_size_t(type, member, count) \ > > struct_size((type *)NULL, member, count) > > > > +/** > > + * DEFINE_FLEX() - Define a zeroed, on-stack, instance of @type structure with > > + * a trailing flexible array member. > > + * > > + * @type: structure type name, including "struct" keyword. > > + * @name: Name for a variable to define. > > + * @member: Name of the array member. > > + * @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const. > > + */ > > +#define DEFINE_FLEX(type, name, member, count) \ > > + union { \ > > + u8 bytes[struct_size_t(type, member, count)]; \ > > + type obj; \ > > + } name##_u __aligned(_Alignof(type)) = {}; \ > > Hmm. Should we always zero it? The onstack variables are not zeroed > automatically. > I realize the onstack structures declared via this macro can't be > initialized on the same line via = { }, but OTOH memset() with const len > and for onstack structs usually gets expanded into static initialization. > The main reason why I'm asking is that sometimes we don't need zeroing > at all, for example for small structures when we then manually set all > the fields either way. I don't think hiding static initialization inside > the macro is a good move. I strongly think this should be always zeroed. In the case where all members are initialized, the zeroing will be elided by the compiler during Dead Store Elimination optimization passes. Additionally, padding, if present, would not get zeroed even if all members got initialized separately, and if any memcpy() of the structure was made, it would contain leaked memory contents. Any redundant initializations will be avoided by the compiler, so let's be safe by default and init the whole thing to zero. -Kees -- Kees Cook