Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:16:02 +0200
From:   Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@microsoft.com>
Cc:     KY Srinivasan <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] hv_sock: Initialize send_buf in
 hvs_stream_enqueue()
Message-ID: <20220415161602.GB47428@anparri>
References: <20220413204742.5539-1-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <20220413204742.5539-5-parri.andrea@gmail.com>
 <PH0PR21MB3025F58A2536209ED3785F24D7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
 <20220415065041.GC2961@anparri>
 <PH0PR21MB302526F1483A6FC932AC55CFD7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR21MB302526F1483A6FC932AC55CFD7EE9@PH0PR21MB3025.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > > All fields are explicitly initialized, and in the data
> > > array, only the populated bytes are copied to the ring buffer.  There should not
> > > be any uninitialized values sent to the host.   Zeroing the memory ahead of
> > > time certainly provides an extra protection (particularly against padding bytes,
> > > but there can't be any since the layout of the data is part of the protocol with
> > > Hyper-V).
> > 
> > Rather than keeping checking that...
> 
> The extra protection might be obtained by just zero'ing the header (i.e., the
> bytes up to the 16 Kbyte data array).   I don't have a strong preference either
> way, so up to you.

A main reason behind this RFC is that I don't have either.  IIUC, you're
suggesting something like (the compiled only):


diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
index 092cadc2c866d..200f12c432863 100644
--- a/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/hyperv_transport.c
@@ -234,7 +234,8 @@ static int __hvs_send_data(struct vmbus_channel *chan,
 {
 	hdr->pkt_type = 1;
 	hdr->data_size = to_write;
-	return vmbus_sendpacket(chan, hdr, sizeof(*hdr) + to_write,
+	return vmbus_sendpacket(chan, hdr,
+				offsetof(struct hvs_send_buf, data) + to_write,
 				0, VM_PKT_DATA_INBAND, 0);
 }
 
@@ -658,6 +659,7 @@ static ssize_t hvs_stream_enqueue(struct vsock_sock *vsk, struct msghdr *msg,
 	send_buf = kmalloc(sizeof(*send_buf), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!send_buf)
 		return -ENOMEM;
+	memset(send_buf, 0, offsetof(struct hvs_send_buf, data));
 
 	/* Reader(s) could be draining data from the channel as we write.
 	 * Maximize bandwidth, by iterating until the channel is found to be
-- 

Let me queue this for further testing/review...

Thanks,
  Andrea