From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D5CC432C0 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB9620855 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:01:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4CB9620855 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lip6.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xALC1NHC001101; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:01:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2F177CF; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:01:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1BA577CE for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:58:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xALBwJmW009902 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:58:19 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,224,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="327507864" Received: from portablejulia.rsr.lip6.fr ([132.227.76.63]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Nov 2019 12:58:18 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:58:18 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: julia@hadrien To: Michal Kubecek In-Reply-To: <20191121111917.GE29650@unicorn.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <1572076456-12463-1-git-send-email-zhang.lin16@zte.com.cn> <20191121111917.GE29650@unicorn.suse.cz> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:01:23 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:58:19 +0100 (CET) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:01:21 +0100 Cc: jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, ast@kernel.org, jiang.xuexin@zte.com.cn, natechancellor@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com, lirongqing@baidu.com, maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com, vivien.didelot@gmail.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com, wang.yi59@zte.com.cn, hawk@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, jiri@mellanox.com, xue.zhihong@zte.com.cn, zhanglin , Thomas Gleixner , cocci , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linyunsheng@huawei.com, pablo@netfilter.org, Joe Perches , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] net: Zeroing the structure ethtool_wolinfo in ethtool_get_wol() X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr On Thu, 21 Nov 2019, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > > On 26.10.19 21:40, Joe Perches wrote: > > > On Sat, 2019-10-26 at 15:54 +0800, zhanglin wrote: > > >> memset() the structure ethtool_wolinfo that has padded bytes > > >> but the padded bytes have not been zeroed out. > > > [] > > >> diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c > > > [] > > >> @@ -1471,11 +1471,13 @@ static int ethtool_reset(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr) > > >> > > >> static int ethtool_get_wol(struct net_device *dev, char __user *useraddr) > > >> { > > >> - struct ethtool_wolinfo wol = { .cmd = ETHTOOL_GWOL }; > > >> + struct ethtool_wolinfo wol; > > >> > > >> if (!dev->ethtool_ops->get_wol) > > >> return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > >> > > >> + memset(&wol, 0, sizeof(struct ethtool_wolinfo)); > > >> + wol.cmd = ETHTOOL_GWOL; > > >> dev->ethtool_ops->get_wol(dev, &wol); > > >> > > >> if (copy_to_user(useraddr, &wol, sizeof(wol))) > > > > > > It seems likely there are more of these. > > > > > > Is there any way for coccinelle to find them? > > > > Just curios: is static struct initialization (on stack) something that > > should be avoided ? I've been under the impression that static > > initialization allows thinner code and gives the compiler better chance > > for optimizations. > > Not in general. The (potential) problem here is that the structure has > padding and it is as a whole (i.e. including the padding) copied to > userspace. While I'm not aware of a compiler that wouldn't actually > initialize the whole data block including the padding in this case, the > C standard provides no guarantee about that so that to be sure we cannot > leak leftover kernel data to userspace, we need to explicitly initialize > the whole block. I'm not sure that it is likely that the compiler will do anything other than ensure that all the fields are initialized. Among the files that I could compile, the only case with actual padding and no memset, memcpy, copy_from_user or structure assignment that I could find was drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_kms.c There is the code struct drm_amdgpu_info_device dev_info = {}; but I couldn't see any thing in the assembly language that seemed to zero the structure. gcc probably thought its job was done because all fields are subsequently initialized. But the size of the structure does not seem to be the same as the sum of the size of the fields. The set of fields was collected with Coccinelle, which could be unreliable for this task. julia > > If the structure is not going to be copied to userspace (or otherwise > exposed), using the initializer is fully sufficient and looks cleaner. > > Michal Kubecek > _______________________________________________ > Cocci mailing list > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci