[PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
accordingly.

It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
results in no binary output differences.

This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].

Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]

Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644
--- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
 typedef struct {
 	int count;
 	unsigned char status;
-	char data[1];
+	char data[];
 } RXBUF;
 
 /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
@@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
 {
 	/* each buffer has header and data */
-	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
+	info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF))
+		+ info->max_frame_size;
 
 	/* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
 	info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
-- 
2.38.1

[PATCH v2] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
flexible-array member in struct RXBUF. No changes were required
within the source code because of the existing padding in RXBUF struct

It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
results in no binary output differences.

This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].

Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]

Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
---
Changelog:

- v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
  changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
  struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.

- v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com/
---
 drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
index b2735be81ab2..0b03c6d13d59 100644
--- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
 typedef struct {
 	int count;
 	unsigned char status;
-	char data[1];
+	char data[];
 } RXBUF;
 
 /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH v2] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:58 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
<paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> flexible-array member in struct RXBUF. No changes were required
> within the source code because of the existing padding in RXBUF struct

You shouldn't rely on padding. Make you change robust independently on
the padding. See also below.

> It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> results in no binary output differences.

This is interesting...

> This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
>
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]

>

The blank lines are not allowed in the tag block (in case you want to
have Link: to be recognized as a tag).

> Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
>
> - v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
>   changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
>   struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.

I feel worried about in particular this code:

/* each buffer has header and data */
info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;

which means that entire rx_alloc_buffers() should be revisited. Also
take into account the use of one or more macros from overflow.h for
memory allocation.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> accordingly.
> 
> It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> results in no binary output differences.
> 
> This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
>  typedef struct {
>  	int count;
>  	unsigned char status;
> -	char data[1];
> +	char data[];
>  } RXBUF;
>  
>  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> @@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
>  {
>  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +	info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF))
> +		+ info->max_frame_size;

It seems like there is an existing size bug here, and likely should be
fixed separately?

i.e. this was already allocating 1 byte "too much". I'd expect this
first:

-	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
+	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;

and then the next patch:

-	char data[1];
+	char data[];
...
-	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
+	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;

The above would induce a binary output change, and the second would not.

Though this results in what you had for the v2 patch (but I can't
believe it had no binary changes...)

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > accordingly.
> > 
> > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> > results in no binary output differences.
> > 
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
> >  typedef struct {
> >  	int count;
> >  	unsigned char status;
> > -	char data[1];
> > +	char data[];
> >  } RXBUF;
> >  
> >  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> > @@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> >  {
> >  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > +	info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF))
> > +		+ info->max_frame_size;
> 
> It seems like there is an existing size bug here, and likely should be
> fixed separately?
> 
> i.e. this was already allocating 1 byte "too much". I'd expect this
> first:
> 
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> and then the next patch:
> 
> -	char data[1];
> +	char data[];
> ...
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> The above would induce a binary output change, and the second would not.
> 
> Though this results in what you had for the v2 patch (but I can't
> believe it had no binary changes...)
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

Hi Kees, Hi Andy, Thanks for taking the time to review this patch.

As both of you had similar points, I will reply them here.

The reasons why it had no binary changes was because of the combination
of this 2 things:

1) Existing padding - so sizeof(RXBUF) returned 8 bytes in both cases.

pahole -C RXBUF gcc/before/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
typedef struct {
	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
	char                       data[1];              /*     5     1 */

	/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
	/* padding: 2 */
	/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
} RXBUF;

pahole -C RXBUF gcc/after/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
typedef struct {
	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
	char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */

	/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
	/* padding: 3 */
	/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
} RXBUF;

2) RXBUF (as implemented now) is just  like a pair of lenses from which a
developer can have access to one of the circular buffers in MGSLPC_INFO
struct called 'rx_buf'. 

2611 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
2612 {
2613         /* each buffer has header and data */
2614         info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
2615
2616         /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
2617         info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
2618
2619         /* limit total allocated memory */
2620         if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
2621                 info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
2622
2623         /* calculate number of buffers */
2624         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
2625
2626         info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);

To be honest, char data[_1_] in RXBUF was never required to be there.
The code base seems to make sure that it doesn't run past its limits by
keeping track of size buffer on MGSLPC_INFO->rx_buf_size (and sometimes
RXBUF->count)

(Addressing one point made by Andy about using of of the macros in
overflow.h)
	struct_size(buf, data, 1) would return 9 bytes which could
	potentially break the existing driver as it produces binary
	changes.

Let me know your thoughts

thanks!

- Paulo A.

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > accordingly.
> > 
> > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> > results in no binary output differences.
> > 
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++--
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
> >  typedef struct {
> >  	int count;
> >  	unsigned char status;
> > -	char data[1];
> > +	char data[];
> >  } RXBUF;
> >  
> >  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> > @@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> >  {
> >  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > +	info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF))
> > +		+ info->max_frame_size;
> 
> It seems like there is an existing size bug here, and likely should be
> fixed separately?
> 
> i.e. this was already allocating 1 byte "too much". I'd expect this
> first:
> 
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> and then the next patch:
> 
> -	char data[1];
> +	char data[];
> ...
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> The above would induce a binary output change, and the second would not.
> 
> Though this results in what you had for the v2 patch (but I can't
> believe it had no binary changes...)
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

Just realised that you made a comment on PATCH v1 and Andy made a
comment on PATCH v2. Please conside my answer for PATCH v2 as I have
abandoned the v1. Apologies for the confusion.

thanks!

- Paulo A.

Re: [PATCH v2] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 12:43:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:58 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
> <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF. No changes were required
> > within the source code because of the existing padding in RXBUF struct
> 
> You shouldn't rely on padding. Make you change robust independently on
> the padding. See also below.
> 
> > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> > results in no binary output differences.
> 
> This is interesting...
> 
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> 
> >
> 
> The blank lines are not allowed in the tag block (in case you want to
> have Link: to be recognized as a tag).
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changelog:
> >
> > - v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
> >   changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
> >   struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.
> 
> I feel worried about in particular this code:
> 
> /* each buffer has header and data */
> info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> which means that entire rx_alloc_buffers() should be revisited. Also
> take into account the use of one or more macros from overflow.h for
> memory allocation.
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Hi Kees, Hi Andy, Thanks for taking the time to review this patch.

As both of you had similar points, I will reply them here.

The reasons why it had no binary changes was because of the combination
of this 2 things:

1) Existing padding - so sizeof(RXBUF) returned 8 bytes in both cases.

pahole -C RXBUF gcc/before/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
typedef struct {
        int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
        unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
        char                       data[1];              /*     5     1 */

        /* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
        /* padding: 2 */
        /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
} RXBUF;

pahole -C RXBUF gcc/after/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
typedef struct {
        int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
        unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
        char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */

        /* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
        /* padding: 3 */
        /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
} RXBUF;

2) RXBUF (as implemented now) is just  like a pair of lenses from which a
developer can have access to one of the circular buffers in MGSLPC_INFO
struct called 'rx_buf'.

2611 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
2612 {
2613         /* each buffer has header and data */
2614         info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
2615
2616         /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
2617         info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
2618
2619         /* limit total allocated memory */
2620         if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
2621                 info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
2622
2623         /* calculate number of buffers */
2624         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
2625
2626         info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);

To be honest, char data[_1_] in RXBUF was never required to be there.
The code base seems to make sure that it doesn't run past its limits by
keeping track of size buffer on MGSLPC_INFO->rx_buf_size (and sometimes
RXBUF->count)

(Addressing one point made by Andy about using of of the macros in
overflow.h)
        struct_size(buf, data, 1) would return 9 bytes which could
        potentially break the existing driver as it produces binary
        changes.

Let me know your thoughts

thanks!

- Paulo A.

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Kees Cook]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:09:46AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > > accordingly.
> > > 
> > > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> > > results in no binary output differences.
> > > 
> > > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> > > 
> > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > > index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
> > >  typedef struct {
> > >  	int count;
> > >  	unsigned char status;
> > > -	char data[1];
> > > +	char data[];
> > >  } RXBUF;
> > >  
> > >  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> > > @@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> > >  {
> > >  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> > > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > > +	info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF))
> > > +		+ info->max_frame_size;
> > 
> > It seems like there is an existing size bug here, and likely should be
> > fixed separately?
> > 
> > i.e. this was already allocating 1 byte "too much". I'd expect this
> > first:
> > 
> > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> > 
> > and then the next patch:
> > 
> > -	char data[1];
> > +	char data[];
> > ...
> > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> > +	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > 
> > The above would induce a binary output change, and the second would not.
> > 
> > Though this results in what you had for the v2 patch (but I can't
> > believe it had no binary changes...)
> > 
> > -- 
> > Kees Cook
> 
> Hi Kees, Hi Andy, Thanks for taking the time to review this patch.
> 
> As both of you had similar points, I will reply them here.
> 
> The reasons why it had no binary changes was because of the combination
> of this 2 things:
> 
> 1) Existing padding - so sizeof(RXBUF) returned 8 bytes in both cases.
> 
> pahole -C RXBUF gcc/before/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
> typedef struct {
> 	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
> 	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
> 	char                       data[1];              /*     5     1 */
> 
> 	/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
> 	/* padding: 2 */
> 	/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> } RXBUF;
> 
> pahole -C RXBUF gcc/after/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
> typedef struct {
> 	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
> 	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
> 	char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */
> 
> 	/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
> 	/* padding: 3 */
> 	/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> } RXBUF;

Ah-ha, now I see.

> 
> 2) RXBUF (as implemented now) is just  like a pair of lenses from which a
> developer can have access to one of the circular buffers in MGSLPC_INFO
> struct called 'rx_buf'. 
> 
> 2611 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> 2612 {
> 2613         /* each buffer has header and data */
> 2614         info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> 2615
> 2616         /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> 2617         info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
> 2618
> 2619         /* limit total allocated memory */
> 2620         if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> 2621                 info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> 2622
> 2623         /* calculate number of buffers */
> 2624         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
> 2625
> 2626         info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> To be honest, char data[_1_] in RXBUF was never required to be there.
> The code base seems to make sure that it doesn't run past its limits by
> keeping track of size buffer on MGSLPC_INFO->rx_buf_size (and sometimes
> RXBUF->count)
> 
> (Addressing one point made by Andy about using of of the macros in
> overflow.h)
> 	struct_size(buf, data, 1) would return 9 bytes which could
> 	potentially break the existing driver as it produces binary
> 	changes.

Yeah, I think your v2 is fine. Perhaps explicitly repeat the notes about
struct size padding in a v3 commit log?

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:09 PM Paulo Miguel Almeida
<paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> > > results in no binary output differences.
> > >
> > > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].

...

> > >  typedef struct {
> > >     int count;
> > >     unsigned char status;
> > > -   char data[1];
> > > +   char data[];
> > >  } RXBUF;

...

> As both of you had similar points, I will reply them here.
>
> The reasons why it had no binary changes was because of the combination
> of this 2 things:
>
> 1) Existing padding - so sizeof(RXBUF) returned 8 bytes in both cases.
>
> pahole -C RXBUF gcc/before/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
> typedef struct {
>         int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
>         unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
>         char                       data[1];              /*     5     1 */
>
>         /* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
>         /* padding: 2 */
>         /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> } RXBUF;
>
> pahole -C RXBUF gcc/after/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.ko
> typedef struct {
>         int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
>         unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
>         char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */
>
>         /* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
>         /* padding: 3 */
>         /* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
> } RXBUF;

Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
go.

> 2) RXBUF (as implemented now) is just  like a pair of lenses from which a
> developer can have access to one of the circular buffers in MGSLPC_INFO
> struct called 'rx_buf'.

> 2611 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> 2612 {
> 2613         /* each buffer has header and data */
> 2614         info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> 2615
> 2616         /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> 2617         info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
> 2618
> 2619         /* limit total allocated memory */
> 2620         if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> 2621                 info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> 2622
> 2623         /* calculate number of buffers */
> 2624         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
> 2625
> 2626         info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> To be honest, char data[_1_] in RXBUF was never required to be there.
> The code base seems to make sure that it doesn't run past its limits by
> keeping track of size buffer on MGSLPC_INFO->rx_buf_size (and sometimes
> RXBUF->count)
>
> (Addressing one point made by Andy about using of of the macros in
> overflow.h)
>         struct_size(buf, data, 1) would return 9 bytes which could
>         potentially break the existing driver as it produces binary
>         changes.

You got it incorrectly. I believe you should use something different than 1.
In previous lines in the function it multiplies sizeof + max_frame_size by 8.

The full change should be something like

check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
kcalloc(8, size)

Think about it.

> Let me know your thoughts

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> go.

I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.

> The full change should be something like
> 
> check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
> kcalloc(8, size)

Right -- this would fix the existing mistakes in size calculation (and
is certainly better).

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > go.
>
> I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.

Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.

> > The full change should be something like
> >
> > check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
> > kcalloc(8, size)
>
> Right -- this would fix the existing mistakes in size calculation (and
> is certainly better).

Glad to hear that we are on the same page.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > > go.
> >
> > I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.
> 
> Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
> 

I agree with using __packed attribute to remove the extra padding (and
for the reasons you mentioned before). That would reduce the sizeof(RXBUF)
from 8 to 5 (which is good) but that is still 1 byte "too much".

Piggying back on a suggestion Kees gave before:

-       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
+       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;

That way RXBUF->data will point to the first byte of the frame_size 
(MGSLPC_INFO->max_frame_size) which is what is actually needed.

> > > The full change should be something like
> > >
> > > check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
> > > kcalloc(8, size)
> >
> > Right -- this would fix the existing mistakes in size calculation (and
> > is certainly better).
> 
> Glad to hear that we are on the same page.
> 

That makes sense to me.

thanks!

- Paulo A.

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 05:29:15PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > > > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > > > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > > > go.
> > >
> > > I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.
> > 
> > Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
> > 
> 
> I agree with using __packed attribute to remove the extra padding (and
> for the reasons you mentioned before). That would reduce the sizeof(RXBUF)
> from 8 to 5 (which is good) but that is still 1 byte "too much".
> 
> Piggying back on a suggestion Kees gave before:
> 
> -       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;
> 
> That way RXBUF->data will point to the first byte of the frame_size 
> (MGSLPC_INFO->max_frame_size) which is what is actually needed.
> 

I chose my words poorly here... sorry my brain is a bit fried today.

Let me rephrase that last sentence. After that change (or similar
change), RXBUF->data will point to the first byte of the buffer
allocated during the initialisation process. (which is
limited/controlled by the size of MGSLPC_INFO->max_frame_size)...
so no 'extra byte/padding' will be there.

- Paulo A.

> > > > The full change should be something like
> > > >
> > > > check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
> > > > kcalloc(8, size)
> > >
> > > Right -- this would fix the existing mistakes in size calculation (and
> > > is certainly better).
> > 
> > Glad to hear that we are on the same page.
> > 
> 
> That makes sense to me.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> - Paulo A.

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:29 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
<paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > > > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > > > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > > > go.
> > >
> > > I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.
> >
> > Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
>
> I agree with using __packed attribute to remove the extra padding (and
> for the reasons you mentioned before). That would reduce the sizeof(RXBUF)
> from 8 to 5 (which is good) but that is still 1 byte "too much".

What I meant with the above is that the code has to work properly with
or without __packed. It's just to show you that this code has flaws if
it relies on the padding.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:29 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
> <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > > > > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > > > > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > > > > go.
> > > >
> > > > I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.
> > >
> > > Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
> >
> > I agree with using __packed attribute to remove the extra padding (and
> > for the reasons you mentioned before). That would reduce the sizeof(RXBUF)
> > from 8 to 5 (which is good) but that is still 1 byte "too much".
> 
> What I meant with the above is that the code has to work properly with
> or without __packed. It's just to show you that this code has flaws if
> it relies on the padding.
> 

Right - that would work just as well. I will work on v3 with the
suggestions given by you (sizing calculation amendments using overflow.h
macros) and kees (adding the notes regarding the padding) then.

- Paulo A.

[PATCH v3] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
accordingly. While at it, fix an edge case which could cause
rx_buf_count to be 0 when max_frame_size was set to the maximum
allowed value (65535).

It's worth mentioning that struct RXBUF was allocating 1 byte "too much"
for what is required (ignoring bytes added by padding).

This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].

Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
---
Changelog:

- v3:
  fix size calculation mistakes using overflow.h macros: (Req: Andy
  Shevchenko, Kees Cook)
  add notes struct RXBUF size (Kees Cook)

- v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
  changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
  struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.

- v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com/
---
 drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
index b2735be81ab2..eee6772a0978 100644
--- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
 typedef struct {
 	int count;
 	unsigned char status;
-	char data[1];
+	char data[];
 } RXBUF;
 
 /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
@@ -229,12 +229,18 @@ typedef struct _mgslpc_info {
 } MGSLPC_INFO;
 
 #define MGSLPC_MAGIC 0x5402
+#define MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE 65535
+#define MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE 4096
 
 /*
  * The size of the serial xmit buffer is 1 page, or 4096 bytes
  */
 #define TXBUFSIZE 4096
 
+/*
+ * RXBUF accommodates at least 1 buffer (header+data) of MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE
+ */
+#define RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (sizeof(RXBUF) + MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
 
 #define CHA     0x00   /* channel A offset */
 #define CHB     0x40   /* channel B offset */
@@ -529,7 +535,7 @@ static int mgslpc_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
 	tty_port_init(&info->port);
 	info->port.ops = &mgslpc_port_ops;
 	INIT_WORK(&info->task, bh_handler);
-	info->max_frame_size = 4096;
+	info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
 	init_waitqueue_head(&info->status_event_wait_q);
 	init_waitqueue_head(&info->event_wait_q);
 	spin_lock_init(&info->lock);
@@ -2611,19 +2617,20 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
 {
 	/* each buffer has header and data */
-	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
+	if (check_add_overflow(sizeof(RXBUF), info->max_frame_size, &info->rx_buf_size))
+		return -EINVAL;
 
-	/* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
-	info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
+	/* try to alloc as many buffers that can fit within RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (up to 8) */
+	if (check_mul_overflow(info->rx_buf_size, 8, &info->rx_buf_total_size))
+		return -EINVAL;
 
-	/* limit total allocated memory */
-	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
-		info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
+	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE)
+		info->rx_buf_total_size = RXBUF_MAX_SIZE;
 
 	/* calculate number of buffers */
 	info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
 
-	info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+	info->rx_buf = kcalloc(info->rx_buf_count, info->rx_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (info->rx_buf == NULL)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -2695,10 +2702,10 @@ static int mgslpc_add_device(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
 		current_dev->next_device = info;
 	}
 
-	if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
-		info->max_frame_size = 4096;
-	else if (info->max_frame_size > 65535)
-		info->max_frame_size = 65535;
+	if (info->max_frame_size < MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE)
+		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
+	else if (info->max_frame_size > MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
+		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE;
 
 	printk("SyncLink PC Card %s:IO=%04X IRQ=%d\n",
 		info->device_name, info->io_base, info->irq_level);
-- 
2.38.1

Re: [PATCH v3] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Kees Cook]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 11:59:06AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> accordingly. While at it, fix an edge case which could cause
> rx_buf_count to be 0 when max_frame_size was set to the maximum
> allowed value (65535).
> 
> It's worth mentioning that struct RXBUF was allocating 1 byte "too much"
> for what is required (ignoring bytes added by padding).

What was the result of using __packed to make sure there wasn't a sizing
error?

-Kees

> 
> This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> 
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> 
> - v3:
>   fix size calculation mistakes using overflow.h macros: (Req: Andy
>   Shevchenko, Kees Cook)
>   add notes struct RXBUF size (Kees Cook)
> 
> - v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
>   changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
>   struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.
> 
> - v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com/
> ---
>  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> index b2735be81ab2..eee6772a0978 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
>  typedef struct {
>  	int count;
>  	unsigned char status;
> -	char data[1];
> +	char data[];
>  } RXBUF;
>  
>  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> @@ -229,12 +229,18 @@ typedef struct _mgslpc_info {
>  } MGSLPC_INFO;
>  
>  #define MGSLPC_MAGIC 0x5402
> +#define MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE 65535
> +#define MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE 4096
>  
>  /*
>   * The size of the serial xmit buffer is 1 page, or 4096 bytes
>   */
>  #define TXBUFSIZE 4096
>  
> +/*
> + * RXBUF accommodates at least 1 buffer (header+data) of MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE
> + */
> +#define RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (sizeof(RXBUF) + MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
>  
>  #define CHA     0x00   /* channel A offset */
>  #define CHB     0x40   /* channel B offset */
> @@ -529,7 +535,7 @@ static int mgslpc_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
>  	tty_port_init(&info->port);
>  	info->port.ops = &mgslpc_port_ops;
>  	INIT_WORK(&info->task, bh_handler);
> -	info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> +	info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
>  	init_waitqueue_head(&info->status_event_wait_q);
>  	init_waitqueue_head(&info->event_wait_q);
>  	spin_lock_init(&info->lock);
> @@ -2611,19 +2617,20 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
>  {
>  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +	if (check_add_overflow(sizeof(RXBUF), info->max_frame_size, &info->rx_buf_size))
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	/* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> -	info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
> +	/* try to alloc as many buffers that can fit within RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (up to 8) */
> +	if (check_mul_overflow(info->rx_buf_size, 8, &info->rx_buf_total_size))
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	/* limit total allocated memory */
> -	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> -		info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> +	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE)
> +		info->rx_buf_total_size = RXBUF_MAX_SIZE;
>  
>  	/* calculate number of buffers */
>  	info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
>  
> -	info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	info->rx_buf = kcalloc(info->rx_buf_count, info->rx_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (info->rx_buf == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -2695,10 +2702,10 @@ static int mgslpc_add_device(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
>  		current_dev->next_device = info;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
> -		info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> -	else if (info->max_frame_size > 65535)
> -		info->max_frame_size = 65535;
> +	if (info->max_frame_size < MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE)
> +		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
> +	else if (info->max_frame_size > MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
> +		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE;
>  
>  	printk("SyncLink PC Card %s:IO=%04X IRQ=%d\n",
>  		info->device_name, info->io_base, info->irq_level);
> -- 
> 2.38.1
> 

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH v3] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:42:47PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 11:59:06AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > accordingly. While at it, fix an edge case which could cause
> > rx_buf_count to be 0 when max_frame_size was set to the maximum
> > allowed value (65535).
> > 
> > It's worth mentioning that struct RXBUF was allocating 1 byte "too much"
> > for what is required (ignoring bytes added by padding).
> 
> What was the result of using __packed to make sure there wasn't a sizing
> error?
> 
> -Kees
> 

With or without __packed__ attribute, sufficient space would be
allocated which is good :-)

In both cases there is still some "extra space" (1 byte on __packed and
4 bytes on non-packed) but that should be negligible. OTOH, if I'm asked
to cull those bytes I am happy to do it too.

pahole -C RXBUF non-packed/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.o
typedef struct {
	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
	char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */

	/* size: 8, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
	/* padding: 3 */
	/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
} RXBUF;

pahole -C RXBUF packed/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.o
typedef struct {
	int                        count;                /*     0     4 */
	unsigned char              status;               /*     4     1 */
	char                       data[];               /*     5     0 */

	/* size: 5, cachelines: 1, members: 3 */
	/* last cacheline: 5 bytes */
} __attribute__((__packed__)) RXBUF;

- Paulo A.

> > 
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> > 
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Changelog:
> > 
> > - v3:
> >   fix size calculation mistakes using overflow.h macros: (Req: Andy
> >   Shevchenko, Kees Cook)
> >   add notes struct RXBUF size (Kees Cook)
> > 
> > - v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
> >   changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
> >   struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.
> > 
> > - v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com/
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > index b2735be81ab2..eee6772a0978 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c
> > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = {
> >  typedef struct {
> >  	int count;
> >  	unsigned char status;
> > -	char data[1];
> > +	char data[];
> >  } RXBUF;
> >  
> >  /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */
> > @@ -229,12 +229,18 @@ typedef struct _mgslpc_info {
> >  } MGSLPC_INFO;
> >  
> >  #define MGSLPC_MAGIC 0x5402
> > +#define MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE 65535
> > +#define MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE 4096
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * The size of the serial xmit buffer is 1 page, or 4096 bytes
> >   */
> >  #define TXBUFSIZE 4096
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * RXBUF accommodates at least 1 buffer (header+data) of MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE
> > + */
> > +#define RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (sizeof(RXBUF) + MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
> >  
> >  #define CHA     0x00   /* channel A offset */
> >  #define CHB     0x40   /* channel B offset */
> > @@ -529,7 +535,7 @@ static int mgslpc_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
> >  	tty_port_init(&info->port);
> >  	info->port.ops = &mgslpc_port_ops;
> >  	INIT_WORK(&info->task, bh_handler);
> > -	info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> > +	info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
> >  	init_waitqueue_head(&info->status_event_wait_q);
> >  	init_waitqueue_head(&info->event_wait_q);
> >  	spin_lock_init(&info->lock);
> > @@ -2611,19 +2617,20 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> >  {
> >  	/* each buffer has header and data */
> > -	info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > +	if (check_add_overflow(sizeof(RXBUF), info->max_frame_size, &info->rx_buf_size))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	/* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> > -	info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
> > +	/* try to alloc as many buffers that can fit within RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (up to 8) */
> > +	if (check_mul_overflow(info->rx_buf_size, 8, &info->rx_buf_total_size))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	/* limit total allocated memory */
> > -	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> > -		info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> > +	if (info->rx_buf_total_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE)
> > +		info->rx_buf_total_size = RXBUF_MAX_SIZE;
> >  
> >  	/* calculate number of buffers */
> >  	info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
> >  
> > -	info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	info->rx_buf = kcalloc(info->rx_buf_count, info->rx_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (info->rx_buf == NULL)
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  
> > @@ -2695,10 +2702,10 @@ static int mgslpc_add_device(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> >  		current_dev->next_device = info;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
> > -		info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> > -	else if (info->max_frame_size > 65535)
> > -		info->max_frame_size = 65535;
> > +	if (info->max_frame_size < MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE)
> > +		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
> > +	else if (info->max_frame_size > MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
> > +		info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE;
> >  
> >  	printk("SyncLink PC Card %s:IO=%04X IRQ=%d\n",
> >  		info->device_name, info->io_base, info->irq_level);
> > -- 
> > 2.38.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

Re: [PATCH v3] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:59 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
<paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> accordingly. While at it, fix an edge case which could cause
> rx_buf_count to be 0 when max_frame_size was set to the maximum
> allowed value (65535).
>
> It's worth mentioning that struct RXBUF was allocating 1 byte "too much"
> for what is required (ignoring bytes added by padding).
>
> This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].

...

>  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
>  {
>         /* each buffer has header and data */
> -       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> +       if (check_add_overflow(sizeof(RXBUF), info->max_frame_size, &info->rx_buf_size))
> +               return -EINVAL;
>
> -       /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> -       info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;

> +       /* try to alloc as many buffers that can fit within RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (up to 8) */
> +       if (check_mul_overflow(info->rx_buf_size, 8, &info->rx_buf_total_size))
> +               return -EINVAL;

This check is implied by kcalloc(). But to make it effective we
probably need to get a count first.

> -       /* limit total allocated memory */
> -       if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> -               info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> +       if (info->rx_buf_total_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE)
> +               info->rx_buf_total_size = RXBUF_MAX_SIZE;

If max_frame_size > 8192 - sizeof(RXBUF), we bump into this condition...

>         /* calculate number of buffers */
>         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;

...which means that rx_buf_count < 8...
(and if max_frame_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE - sizeof(RXBUF), count becomes
0, I don't know if below clamp_val() is the only place to guarantee
that)

> -       info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> +       info->rx_buf = kcalloc(info->rx_buf_count, info->rx_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);

...hence rx_buf size will be less than rx_buf_total_size.

That is probably not an issue per se, but I'm wondering if the
(bigger) value of rx_buf_total_size is the problem further in the
code.

>         if (info->rx_buf == NULL)
>                 return -ENOMEM;

Maybe something like

static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
{
    /* Prevent count from being 0 */
    if (->max_frame_size > MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
        return -EINVAL;
    ...
   count = ...;
   ...
   rx_total_size = ...
   rx_buf = kcalloc(...);

Then you don't need to check overflow with check_add_overflow() and
check_mul_overflow() will be inside the kcalloc.

...

> -       if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
> -               info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> -       else if (info->max_frame_size > 65535)
> -               info->max_frame_size = 65535;
> +       if (info->max_frame_size < MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE)
> +               info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
> +       else if (info->max_frame_size > MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
> +               info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE;

You can use clamp_val() macro here.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v3] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member

[Paulo Miguel Almeida]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 01:43:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 12:59 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
> <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct RXBUF and refactor the rest of the code
> > accordingly. While at it, fix an edge case which could cause
> > rx_buf_count to be 0 when max_frame_size was set to the maximum
> > allowed value (65535).
> >
> > It's worth mentioning that struct RXBUF was allocating 1 byte "too much"
> > for what is required (ignoring bytes added by padding).
> >
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> 
> ...
> 
> >  static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> >  {
> >         /* each buffer has header and data */
> > -       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
> > +       if (check_add_overflow(sizeof(RXBUF), info->max_frame_size, &info->rx_buf_size))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -       /* calculate total allocation size for 8 buffers */
> > -       info->rx_buf_total_size = info->rx_buf_size * 8;
> 
> > +       /* try to alloc as many buffers that can fit within RXBUF_MAX_SIZE (up to 8) */
> > +       if (check_mul_overflow(info->rx_buf_size, 8, &info->rx_buf_total_size))
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> 
> This check is implied by kcalloc(). But to make it effective we
> probably need to get a count first.
> 
> > -       /* limit total allocated memory */
> > -       if (info->rx_buf_total_size > 0x10000)
> > -               info->rx_buf_total_size = 0x10000;
> > +       if (info->rx_buf_total_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE)
> > +               info->rx_buf_total_size = RXBUF_MAX_SIZE;
> 
> If max_frame_size > 8192 - sizeof(RXBUF), we bump into this condition...
> 
> >         /* calculate number of buffers */
> >         info->rx_buf_count = info->rx_buf_total_size / info->rx_buf_size;
> 
> ...which means that rx_buf_count < 8...

that's correct. My reading of what the original author intended is the
following:

- rx_buf_count can be < 8 if max_frame_size needs to be > 8192 so that
  userspace tools don't need to collate the different packets together
  then again, SyncLink_CS supports a variety of protocols.

- the more circular buffers, the better, but it looks perfectly acceptable
  to have 1 big rx_buf (max_frame_size possible) if the communication is
  orchestrated nicely (which part sends what and when) especially for
  RS-232-based communications.


> (and if max_frame_size > RXBUF_MAX_SIZE - sizeof(RXBUF), count becomes
> 0, I don't know if below clamp_val() is the only place to guarantee
> that)
> 

I can confirm that the clamp_val() below is the only place that
guarantees the max_frame_size isn't greater than RXBUF_MAX_SIZE. That
happens at the device probing stage: 

( mgslpc_probe > mgslpc_add_device > clamp_val-like routine )

As max_frame_size can only be set as a module parameter and no other way
is exposed to userspace to tweak that afterwards, my 2 cents is that 
clamp_val() routine should be fine as rx_buf_count will always be > 0 
after this fix.

> > -       info->rx_buf = kmalloc(info->rx_buf_total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +       info->rx_buf = kcalloc(info->rx_buf_count, info->rx_buf_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> ...hence rx_buf size will be less than rx_buf_total_size.
> 
> That is probably not an issue per se, but I'm wondering if the
> (bigger) value of rx_buf_total_size is the problem further in the
> code.
> 

rx_buf_total_size isn't used outside of this function so it
could be a local variable IMO.. so I would say that this wouldn't be a
problem.

I had noticed that rx_buf_total_size could be moved into a local
variable before but I thought that removing it from MGSLPC struct
should be part of a separate patch instead.

> >         if (info->rx_buf == NULL)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Maybe something like
> 
> static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info)
> {
>     /* Prevent count from being 0 */
>     if (->max_frame_size > MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
>         return -EINVAL;

This boils down to whether having the clamp_val() on the probe method is
sufficient in your point of view. You make the final call on this :-)

>     ...
>    count = ...;
>    ...
>    rx_total_size = ...
>    rx_buf = kcalloc(...);
> 
> Then you don't need to check overflow with check_add_overflow() and
> check_mul_overflow() will be inside the kcalloc.
> 

check_mul_overflow point -> agreed.

check_add_overflow -> similar suggestion as my previous point, if the
clamp_val on probe is sufficient for you, I would say that we don't need
it as of now too. But if you still think that we need it, I'm flexible
with that too.

> ...
> 
> > -       if (info->max_frame_size < 4096)
> > -               info->max_frame_size = 4096;
> > -       else if (info->max_frame_size > 65535)
> > -               info->max_frame_size = 65535;
> > +       if (info->max_frame_size < MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE)
> > +               info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MIN_FRAME_SIZE;
> > +       else if (info->max_frame_size > MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE)
> > +               info->max_frame_size = MGSLPC_MAX_FRAME_SIZE;
> 
> You can use clamp_val() macro here.
> 

Nice, I didn't know about this macro. I will make that change for v4.

All really nice points you've made Andy, I'm learning heaps of new
things with this patch :-)

thanks!

- Paulo A.