From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: "'john.hubbard@gmail.com'" <john.hubbard@gmail.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/boot: save fields explicitly, zero out everything else
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:41:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <531b38aaa15e4de79a5e27fd37c04351@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190731054627.5627-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
From: john.hubbard@gmail.com
> Sent: 31 July 2019 06:46
>
> Recent gcc compilers (gcc 9.1) generate warnings about an
> out of bounds memset, if you trying memset across several fields
> of a struct. This generated a couple of warnings on x86_64 builds.
>
> Fix this by explicitly saving the fields in struct boot_params
> that are intended to be preserved, and zeroing all the rest.
>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Suggested-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h | 62 +++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h
> index 101eb944f13c..514aee24b8de 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bootparam_utils.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,20 @@
> * Note: efi_info is commonly left uninitialized, but that field has a
> * private magic, so it is better to leave it unchanged.
> */
> +
> +#define sizeof_mbr(type, member) ({ sizeof(((type *)0)->member); })
> +
> +#define BOOT_PARAM_PRESERVE(struct_member) \
> + { \
> + .start = offsetof(struct boot_params, struct_member), \
> + .len = sizeof_mbr(struct boot_params, struct_member), \
> + }
> +
> +struct boot_params_to_save {
> + unsigned int start;
> + unsigned int len;
> +};
> +
> static void sanitize_boot_params(struct boot_params *boot_params)
> {
> /*
> @@ -35,21 +49,39 @@ static void sanitize_boot_params(struct boot_params *boot_params)
> * problems again.
> */
> if (boot_params->sentinel) {
> - /* fields in boot_params are left uninitialized, clear them */
> - boot_params->acpi_rsdp_addr = 0;
> - memset(&boot_params->ext_ramdisk_image, 0,
> - (char *)&boot_params->efi_info -
> - (char *)&boot_params->ext_ramdisk_image);
> - memset(&boot_params->kbd_status, 0,
> - (char *)&boot_params->hdr -
> - (char *)&boot_params->kbd_status);
> - memset(&boot_params->_pad7[0], 0,
> - (char *)&boot_params->edd_mbr_sig_buffer[0] -
> - (char *)&boot_params->_pad7[0]);
> - memset(&boot_params->_pad8[0], 0,
> - (char *)&boot_params->eddbuf[0] -
> - (char *)&boot_params->_pad8[0]);
> - memset(&boot_params->_pad9[0], 0, sizeof(boot_params->_pad9));
...
How about replacing the above first using:
#define zero_struct_fields(ptr, from, to) memset(&ptr->from, 0, (char *)&ptr->to - (char *)&ptr->from)
zero_struct_fields(boot_params, ext_ramdisk_image, efi_info);
...
Which is absolutely identical to the original code.
The replacing the define with:
#define so(s, m) offsetof(typeof(*s), m)
#define zero_struct_fields(ptr, from, to) memset((char *)ptr + so(ptr, from), 0, so(ptr, to) - so(ptr, from))
which gcc probably doesn't complain about, but should generate identical code again.
There might be an existing define for so().
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-31 5:46 [PATCH v2 0/1] x86/boot: save fields explicitly, zero out everything else john.hubbard
2019-07-31 5:46 ` [PATCH v2] " john.hubbard
2019-08-07 11:41 ` David Laight [this message]
2019-08-07 19:43 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-07 13:19 ` [tip:x86/boot] x86/boot: Save " tip-bot for John Hubbard
2019-08-07 13:28 ` tip-bot for John Hubbard
2019-08-10 7:40 ` [PATCH v2] x86/boot: save " Chris Clayton
2019-08-16 12:25 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/boot: Save " tip-bot for John Hubbard
2019-09-01 15:38 ` [PATCH] x86/boot: Fix regression--secure boot info loss from bootparam sanitizing John S Gruber
2019-09-01 18:36 ` John Hubbard
2019-09-01 22:00 ` [PATCH V2] " John S Gruber
2019-09-02 7:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-09-02 8:17 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/boot: Preserve boot_params.secure_boot from sanitizing tip-bot2 for John S. Gruber
2019-08-05 20:28 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] x86/boot: save fields explicitly, zero out everything else John Hubbard
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=531b38aaa15e4de79a5e27fd37c04351@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=john.hubbard@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).