diff mbox series

[10/12] vhost/crypto: fix build with GCC 12

Message ID 20220518101657.1230416-11-david.marchand@redhat.com (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series Fix compilation with gcc 12 | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

David Marchand May 18, 2022, 10:16 a.m. UTC
GCC 12 raises the following warning:

In file included from ../lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h:46,
                 from ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:38,
                 from ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:7:
../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c: In function ‘rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests’:
../lib/eal/x86/include/rte_memcpy.h:371:9: warning: array subscript 1 is
     outside array bounds of ‘struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req[1]’
     [-Warray-bounds]
  371 | rte_mov32((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32, (const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32);
      | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:1178:42: note: while referencing ‘req’
 1178 |         struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req req;
      |                                          ^~~

Check that copied length is within req boundaries.

Fixes: 3c79609fda7c ("vhost/crypto: handle virtually non-contiguous buffers")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
---
 lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Bruce Richardson June 2, 2022, 10:08 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:16:55PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> GCC 12 raises the following warning:
> 
> In file included from ../lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h:46,
>                  from ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:38,
>                  from ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:7:
> ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c: In function ‘rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests’:
> ../lib/eal/x86/include/rte_memcpy.h:371:9: warning: array subscript 1 is
>      outside array bounds of ‘struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req[1]’
>      [-Warray-bounds]
>   371 | rte_mov32((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32, (const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32);
>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:1178:42: note: while referencing ‘req’
>  1178 |         struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req req;
>       |                                          ^~~
> 
> Check that copied length is within req boundaries.
> 
> Fixes: 3c79609fda7c ("vhost/crypto: handle virtually non-contiguous buffers")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> ---
>  lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> index b1c0eb6a0f..83325b7042 100644
> --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> @@ -576,16 +576,16 @@ copy_data(void *dst_data, struct vhost_crypto_data_req *vc_req,
>  	uint32_t to_copy;
>  	uint8_t *data = dst_data;
>  	uint8_t *src;
> -	int left = size;
> +	uint32_t left = size;
>  
> -	to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, (uint32_t)left);
> +	to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, left);
>  	dlen = to_copy;
>  	src = IOVA_TO_VVA(uint8_t *, vc_req, desc->addr, &dlen,
>  			VHOST_ACCESS_RO);

Tracking the functions which end up being called by this macro, the dlen
parameter ends up being of type "uint64_t *", passing a value of int * or
uint32_t * seems wrong to me. If we are changing the type from int to
uint32_t, I think it should be promoted all the way to uint64_t.

> -	if (unlikely(!src || !dlen))
> +	if (unlikely(!src || !dlen || dlen > left))
>  		return -1;
>  

If this change is omitted, does the compiler still give warnings. Looking
through the called code, the dlen parameter can only ever be reduced, not
incremented (function rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa() in rte_vhost.h).

> -	rte_memcpy((uint8_t *)data, src, dlen);
> +	rte_memcpy(data, src, dlen);
>  	data += dlen;
>  
>  	if (unlikely(dlen < to_copy)) {
> -- 
> 2.36.1
>
Stephen Hemminger June 11, 2022, 3:36 p.m. UTC | #2
On Wed, 18 May 2022 12:16:55 +0200
David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com> wrote:

> GCC 12 raises the following warning:
> 
> In file included from ../lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h:46,
>                  from ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:38,
>                  from ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:7:
> ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c: In function ‘rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests’:
> ../lib/eal/x86/include/rte_memcpy.h:371:9: warning: array subscript 1 is
>      outside array bounds of ‘struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req[1]’
>      [-Warray-bounds]
>   371 | rte_mov32((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32, (const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32);
>       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:1178:42: note: while referencing ‘req’
>  1178 |         struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req req;
>       |                                          ^~~
> 
> Check that copied length is within req boundaries.
> 
> Fixes: 3c79609fda7c ("vhost/crypto: handle virtually non-contiguous buffers")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>


Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
David Marchand June 14, 2022, 9:22 a.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:09 PM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:16:55PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > GCC 12 raises the following warning:
> >
> > In file included from ../lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h:46,
> >                  from ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:38,
> >                  from ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:7:
> > ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c: In function ‘rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests’:
> > ../lib/eal/x86/include/rte_memcpy.h:371:9: warning: array subscript 1 is
> >      outside array bounds of ‘struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req[1]’
> >      [-Warray-bounds]
> >   371 | rte_mov32((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32, (const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32);
> >       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:1178:42: note: while referencing ‘req’
> >  1178 |         struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req req;
> >       |                                          ^~~
> >
> > Check that copied length is within req boundaries.
> >
> > Fixes: 3c79609fda7c ("vhost/crypto: handle virtually non-contiguous buffers")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > index b1c0eb6a0f..83325b7042 100644
> > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > @@ -576,16 +576,16 @@ copy_data(void *dst_data, struct vhost_crypto_data_req *vc_req,
> >       uint32_t to_copy;
> >       uint8_t *data = dst_data;
> >       uint8_t *src;
> > -     int left = size;
> > +     uint32_t left = size;
> >
> > -     to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, (uint32_t)left);
> > +     to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, left);
> >       dlen = to_copy;
> >       src = IOVA_TO_VVA(uint8_t *, vc_req, desc->addr, &dlen,
> >                       VHOST_ACCESS_RO);
>
> Tracking the functions which end up being called by this macro, the dlen
> parameter ends up being of type "uint64_t *", passing a value of int * or
> uint32_t * seems wrong to me. If we are changing the type from int to
> uint32_t, I think it should be promoted all the way to uint64_t.

Indeed.
I'll update in v2.

We already had some CVE on this part of the code, a careful review is needed.


>
> > -     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen))
> > +     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen || dlen > left))
> >               return -1;
> >
>
> If this change is omitted, does the compiler still give warnings. Looking
> through the called code, the dlen parameter can only ever be reduced, not
> incremented (function rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa() in rte_vhost.h).

If I promote to_copy and left variables as uint64_t, gcc is still
unhappy, for the same reason.
The check on dlen > left seems necessary.


>
> > -     rte_memcpy((uint8_t *)data, src, dlen);
> > +     rte_memcpy(data, src, dlen);
> >       data += dlen;
> >
> >       if (unlikely(dlen < to_copy)) {
> > --
> > 2.36.1
> >
>
Bruce Richardson June 14, 2022, 9:25 a.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:22:24AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:09 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 12:16:55PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > GCC 12 raises the following warning:
> > >
> > > In file included from ../lib/mempool/rte_mempool.h:46,
> > >                  from ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:38,
> > >                  from ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:7:
> > > ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c: In function ‘rte_vhost_crypto_fetch_requests’:
> > > ../lib/eal/x86/include/rte_memcpy.h:371:9: warning: array subscript 1 is
> > >      outside array bounds of ‘struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req[1]’
> > >      [-Warray-bounds]
> > >   371 | rte_mov32((uint8_t *)dst + 3 * 32, (const uint8_t *)src + 3 * 32);
> > >       | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ../lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c:1178:42: note: while referencing ‘req’
> > >  1178 |         struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req req;
> > >       |                                          ^~~
> > >
> > > Check that copied length is within req boundaries.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 3c79609fda7c ("vhost/crypto: handle virtually non-contiguous buffers")
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c | 8 ++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > > index b1c0eb6a0f..83325b7042 100644
> > > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
> > > @@ -576,16 +576,16 @@ copy_data(void *dst_data, struct vhost_crypto_data_req *vc_req,
> > >       uint32_t to_copy;
> > >       uint8_t *data = dst_data;
> > >       uint8_t *src;
> > > -     int left = size;
> > > +     uint32_t left = size;
> > >
> > > -     to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, (uint32_t)left);
> > > +     to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, left);
> > >       dlen = to_copy;
> > >       src = IOVA_TO_VVA(uint8_t *, vc_req, desc->addr, &dlen,
> > >                       VHOST_ACCESS_RO);
> >
> > Tracking the functions which end up being called by this macro, the dlen
> > parameter ends up being of type "uint64_t *", passing a value of int * or
> > uint32_t * seems wrong to me. If we are changing the type from int to
> > uint32_t, I think it should be promoted all the way to uint64_t.
> 
> Indeed.
> I'll update in v2.
> 
> We already had some CVE on this part of the code, a careful review is needed.
> 
> 
> >
> > > -     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen))
> > > +     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen || dlen > left))
> > >               return -1;
> > >
> >
> > If this change is omitted, does the compiler still give warnings. Looking
> > through the called code, the dlen parameter can only ever be reduced, not
> > incremented (function rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa() in rte_vhost.h).
> 
> If I promote to_copy and left variables as uint64_t, gcc is still
> unhappy, for the same reason.
> The check on dlen > left seems necessary.
> 
> 
Ok, just thought I'd ask anyway. I wonder if we need to check for
wrap-around in the reduction case, since we are dealing with unsigned
values. This additional check should catch that anyway if it does occur.

/Bruce
David Marchand June 16, 2022, 9:27 a.m. UTC | #5
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:25 AM Bruce Richardson
<bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > -     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen))
> > > > +     if (unlikely(!src || !dlen || dlen > left))
> > > >               return -1;
> > > >
> > >
> > > If this change is omitted, does the compiler still give warnings. Looking
> > > through the called code, the dlen parameter can only ever be reduced, not
> > > incremented (function rte_vhost_va_from_guest_pa() in rte_vhost.h).
> >
> > If I promote to_copy and left variables as uint64_t, gcc is still
> > unhappy, for the same reason.
> > The check on dlen > left seems necessary.
> >
> >
> Ok, just thought I'd ask anyway. I wonder if we need to check for
> wrap-around in the reduction case, since we are dealing with unsigned
> values. This additional check should catch that anyway if it does occur.

I had a fresh look at this code and went with some splitting / simplification.
This makes the code clearer, and there is no added check.

I'll send a v2.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
index b1c0eb6a0f..83325b7042 100644
--- a/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
+++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_crypto.c
@@ -576,16 +576,16 @@  copy_data(void *dst_data, struct vhost_crypto_data_req *vc_req,
 	uint32_t to_copy;
 	uint8_t *data = dst_data;
 	uint8_t *src;
-	int left = size;
+	uint32_t left = size;
 
-	to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, (uint32_t)left);
+	to_copy = RTE_MIN(desc->len, left);
 	dlen = to_copy;
 	src = IOVA_TO_VVA(uint8_t *, vc_req, desc->addr, &dlen,
 			VHOST_ACCESS_RO);
-	if (unlikely(!src || !dlen))
+	if (unlikely(!src || !dlen || dlen > left))
 		return -1;
 
-	rte_memcpy((uint8_t *)data, src, dlen);
+	rte_memcpy(data, src, dlen);
 	data += dlen;
 
 	if (unlikely(dlen < to_copy)) {