diff mbox series

[v2,56/63] RDMA/mlx5: Use struct_group() to zero struct mlx5_ib_mr

Message ID 20210818060533.3569517-57-keescook@chromium.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Introduce strict memcpy() bounds checking | expand

Commit Message

Kees Cook Aug. 18, 2021, 6:05 a.m. UTC
In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
neighboring fields.

Add struct_group() to mark region of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should be
initialized to zero.

Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Jason Gunthorpe Aug. 19, 2021, 12:27 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:05:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> neighboring fields.
> 
> Add struct_group() to mark region of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should be
> initialized to zero.
> 
> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> index bf20a388eabe..f63bf204a7a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
>  	struct ib_umem *umem;
>  
>  	/* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> +	struct_group(cleared,
>  	union {
>  		/* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
>  		struct {
> @@ -691,12 +692,13 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
>  			bool is_odp_implicit;
>  		};
>  	};
> +	);
>  };
>  
>  /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
>  static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
>  {
> -	memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
> +	memset(&mr->cleared, 0, sizeof(mr->cleared));
>  }

Why not use the memset_after(mr->umem) here?

Jason
Kees Cook Aug. 19, 2021, 4:19 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:27:16AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:05:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> > neighboring fields.
> > 
> > Add struct_group() to mark region of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should be
> > initialized to zero.
> > 
> > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > index bf20a388eabe..f63bf204a7a1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> >  	struct ib_umem *umem;
> >  
> >  	/* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> > +	struct_group(cleared,
> >  	union {
> >  		/* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
> >  		struct {
> > @@ -691,12 +692,13 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> >  			bool is_odp_implicit;
> >  		};
> >  	};
> > +	);
> >  };
> >  
> >  /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
> >  static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
> >  {
> > -	memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
> > +	memset(&mr->cleared, 0, sizeof(mr->cleared));
> >  }
> 
> Why not use the memset_after(mr->umem) here?

I can certainly do that instead. In this series I've tended to opt
for groupings so the position of future struct member additions are
explicitly chosen. (i.e. reducing the chance that a zeroing of the new
member be a surprise.)

-Kees
Jason Gunthorpe Aug. 19, 2021, 4:47 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:19:08AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:27:16AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:05:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> > > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> > > neighboring fields.
> > > 
> > > Add struct_group() to mark region of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should be
> > > initialized to zero.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 4 +++-
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > index bf20a388eabe..f63bf204a7a1 100644
> > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > >  	struct ib_umem *umem;
> > >  
> > >  	/* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> > > +	struct_group(cleared,
> > >  	union {
> > >  		/* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
> > >  		struct {
> > > @@ -691,12 +692,13 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > >  			bool is_odp_implicit;
> > >  		};
> > >  	};
> > > +	);
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
> > >  static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
> > >  {
> > > -	memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
> > > +	memset(&mr->cleared, 0, sizeof(mr->cleared));
> > >  }
> > 
> > Why not use the memset_after(mr->umem) here?
> 
> I can certainly do that instead. In this series I've tended to opt
> for groupings so the position of future struct member additions are
> explicitly chosen. (i.e. reducing the chance that a zeroing of the new
> member be a surprise.)

I saw the earlier RDMA patches where using other memset techniques
though? Were there flex arrays or something that made groups infeasible?

Jason
Kees Cook Aug. 19, 2021, 6:14 p.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 01:47:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:19:08AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:27:16AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:05:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> > > > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> > > > neighboring fields.
> > > > 
> > > > Add struct_group() to mark region of struct mlx5_ib_mr that should be
> > > > initialized to zero.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > >  drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > > index bf20a388eabe..f63bf204a7a1 100644
> > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
> > > > @@ -644,6 +644,7 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > > >  	struct ib_umem *umem;
> > > >  
> > > >  	/* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
> > > > +	struct_group(cleared,
> > > >  	union {
> > > >  		/* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
> > > >  		struct {
> > > > @@ -691,12 +692,13 @@ struct mlx5_ib_mr {
> > > >  			bool is_odp_implicit;
> > > >  		};
> > > >  	};
> > > > +	);
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
> > > >  static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
> > > > +	memset(&mr->cleared, 0, sizeof(mr->cleared));
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > Why not use the memset_after(mr->umem) here?
> > 
> > I can certainly do that instead. In this series I've tended to opt
> > for groupings so the position of future struct member additions are
> > explicitly chosen. (i.e. reducing the chance that a zeroing of the new
> > member be a surprise.)
> 
> I saw the earlier RDMA patches where using other memset techniques
> though? Were there flex arrays or something that made groups infeasible?

Which do you mean? When doing the conversions I tended to opt for
struct_group() since it provides more robust "intentionality". Strictly
speaking, the new memset helpers are doing field-spanning writes, but the
"clear to the end" pattern was so common it made sense to add the helpers,
as they're a bit less disruptive. It's totally up to you! :)
Jason Gunthorpe Aug. 20, 2021, 12:34 p.m. UTC | #5
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

> Which do you mean? When doing the conversions I tended to opt for
> struct_group() since it provides more robust "intentionality". Strictly
> speaking, the new memset helpers are doing field-spanning writes, but the
> "clear to the end" pattern was so common it made sense to add the helpers,
> as they're a bit less disruptive. It's totally up to you! :)

Well, of the patches you cc'd to me only this one used the struct
group..

Jason
Kees Cook Aug. 20, 2021, 3:56 p.m. UTC | #6
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 09:34:00AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > Which do you mean? When doing the conversions I tended to opt for
> > struct_group() since it provides more robust "intentionality". Strictly
> > speaking, the new memset helpers are doing field-spanning writes, but the
> > "clear to the end" pattern was so common it made sense to add the helpers,
> > as they're a bit less disruptive. It's totally up to you! :)
> 
> Well, of the patches you cc'd to me only this one used the struct
> group..

Understood. I've adjusted this for v3. Thanks!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
index bf20a388eabe..f63bf204a7a1 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h
@@ -644,6 +644,7 @@  struct mlx5_ib_mr {
 	struct ib_umem *umem;
 
 	/* This is zero'd when the MR is allocated */
+	struct_group(cleared,
 	union {
 		/* Used only while the MR is in the cache */
 		struct {
@@ -691,12 +692,13 @@  struct mlx5_ib_mr {
 			bool is_odp_implicit;
 		};
 	};
+	);
 };
 
 /* Zero the fields in the mr that are variant depending on usage */
 static inline void mlx5_clear_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)
 {
-	memset(mr->out, 0, sizeof(*mr) - offsetof(struct mlx5_ib_mr, out));
+	memset(&mr->cleared, 0, sizeof(mr->cleared));
 }
 
 static inline bool is_odp_mr(struct mlx5_ib_mr *mr)