'struct xdp_umem_reg' has 4 bytes of padding at the end that makes
valgrind complain about passing uninitialized stack memory to the
syscall:
Syscall param socketcall.setsockopt() points to uninitialised byte(s)
at 0x4E7AB7E: setsockopt (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
by 0x4BDE035: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:172)
Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
at 0x4BDDEBA: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:140)
Padding bytes appeared after introducing of a new 'flags' field.
memset() is required to clear them.
Fixes: 10d30e301732 ("libbpf: add flags to umem config")
Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
---
Version 2:
* Struct initializer replaced with explicit memset(). [Andrii]
tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
index a902838f9fcc..9d5348086203 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
@@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4(struct xsk_umem **umem_ptr, void *umem_area,
umem->umem_area = umem_area;
xsk_set_umem_config(&umem->config, usr_config);
+ memset(&mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
mr.addr = (uintptr_t)umem_area;
mr.len = size;
mr.chunk_size = umem->config.frame_size;
--
2.17.1
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:49 AM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 'struct xdp_umem_reg' has 4 bytes of padding at the end that makes
> valgrind complain about passing uninitialized stack memory to the
> syscall:
>
> Syscall param socketcall.setsockopt() points to uninitialised byte(s)
> at 0x4E7AB7E: setsockopt (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
> by 0x4BDE035: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:172)
> Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
> at 0x4BDDEBA: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:140)
>
> Padding bytes appeared after introducing of a new 'flags' field.
> memset() is required to clear them.
>
> Fixes: 10d30e301732 ("libbpf: add flags to umem config")
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
> ---
>
Thanks!
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
> Version 2:
> * Struct initializer replaced with explicit memset(). [Andrii]
>
> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> index a902838f9fcc..9d5348086203 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4(struct xsk_umem **umem_ptr, void *umem_area,
> umem->umem_area = umem_area;
> xsk_set_umem_config(&umem->config, usr_config);
>
> + memset(&mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
> mr.addr = (uintptr_t)umem_area;
> mr.len = size;
> mr.chunk_size = umem->config.frame_size;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:49 AM Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 'struct xdp_umem_reg' has 4 bytes of padding at the end that makes
> valgrind complain about passing uninitialized stack memory to the
> syscall:
>
> Syscall param socketcall.setsockopt() points to uninitialised byte(s)
> at 0x4E7AB7E: setsockopt (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
> by 0x4BDE035: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:172)
> Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
> at 0x4BDDEBA: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:140)
>
> Padding bytes appeared after introducing of a new 'flags' field.
> memset() is required to clear them.
>
> Fixes: 10d30e301732 ("libbpf: add flags to umem config")
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
Applied. Thanks
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:49:29PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> 'struct xdp_umem_reg' has 4 bytes of padding at the end that makes
> valgrind complain about passing uninitialized stack memory to the
> syscall:
>
> Syscall param socketcall.setsockopt() points to uninitialised byte(s)
> at 0x4E7AB7E: setsockopt (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
> by 0x4BDE035: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:172)
> Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
> at 0x4BDDEBA: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:140)
>
> Padding bytes appeared after introducing of a new 'flags' field.
> memset() is required to clear them.
>
> Fixes: 10d30e301732 ("libbpf: add flags to umem config")
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> Version 2:
> * Struct initializer replaced with explicit memset(). [Andrii]
>
> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> index a902838f9fcc..9d5348086203 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4(struct xsk_umem **umem_ptr, void *umem_area,
> umem->umem_area = umem_area;
> xsk_set_umem_config(&umem->config, usr_config);
>
> + memset(&mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
> mr.addr = (uintptr_t)umem_area;
> mr.len = size;
> mr.chunk_size = umem->config.frame_size;
This was already applied. Why did you resend?
On 13.10.2019 1:24, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 06:49:29PM +0200, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> 'struct xdp_umem_reg' has 4 bytes of padding at the end that makes
>> valgrind complain about passing uninitialized stack memory to the
>> syscall:
>>
>> Syscall param socketcall.setsockopt() points to uninitialised byte(s)
>> at 0x4E7AB7E: setsockopt (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.29.so)
>> by 0x4BDE035: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:172)
>> Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
>> at 0x4BDDEBA: xsk_umem__create@@LIBBPF_0.0.4 (xsk.c:140)
>>
>> Padding bytes appeared after introducing of a new 'flags' field.
>> memset() is required to clear them.
>>
>> Fixes: 10d30e301732 ("libbpf: add flags to umem config")
>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> Version 2:
>> * Struct initializer replaced with explicit memset(). [Andrii]
>>
>> tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
>> index a902838f9fcc..9d5348086203 100644
>> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/xsk.c
>> @@ -163,6 +163,7 @@ int xsk_umem__create_v0_0_4(struct xsk_umem **umem_ptr, void *umem_area,
>> umem->umem_area = umem_area;
>> xsk_set_umem_config(&umem->config, usr_config);
>>
>> + memset(&mr, 0, sizeof(mr));
>> mr.addr = (uintptr_t)umem_area;
>> mr.len = size;
>> mr.chunk_size = umem->config.frame_size;
>
> This was already applied. Why did you resend?
>
Sorry, it wasn't me. Looking at the mail delivery chain:
Received: from listssympa-test.colorado.edu (listssympa-test.colorado.edu [128.138.129.156])
by spool.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66E2F780445
for <[email protected]>; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 04:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from listssympa-test.colorado.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by listssympa-test.colorado.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/MJC-8.0/sympa) with ESMTPS id x9D4pvsL015926
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 22:51:57 -0600
Received: (from root@localhost)
by listssympa-test.colorado.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/MJC-8.0/submit) id x9D4pujl015885;
Sat, 12 Oct 2019 22:51:56 -0600
Received: from DM5PR03MB3273.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:54::17) by
BYAPR03MB4376.namprd03.prod.outlook.com with HTTPS via
BYAPR02CA0040.NAMPRD02.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 22:04:15 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03CA0057.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:404:4c::19) by
DM5PR03MB3273.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:42::32) with Microsoft
SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384)
id 15.20.2347.16; Wed, 9 Oct 2019 17:44:13 +0000
There is some strange server listssympa-test.colorado.edu.
Looks like someone in colorado.edu is testing stuff on production server.
The simplified delivery chain looks like this:
Me -> relay6-d.mail.gandi.net -> vger.kernel.org -> mx.colorado.edu ->
mail.protection.outlook.com -> namprd03.prod.outlook.com ->
listssympa-test.colorado.edu -> spool.mail.gandi.net -> Me again!
Best regards, Ilya Maximets.