Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85937-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <653bbfe8-1b35-4f5e-b89d-9e374c64e46b@embeddedor.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 18:49:25 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] net-device: Use new helpers from overflow.h in
 netdevice APIs
Content-Language: en-US
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
 Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva"
 <gustavoars@kernel.org>
References: <20240228204919.3680786-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20240228204919.3680786-8-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <202402281341.AC67EB6E35@keescook> <20240228144148.5c227487@kernel.org>
 <202402281554.C1CEEF744@keescook>
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
In-Reply-To: <202402281554.C1CEEF744@keescook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2/28/24 18:01, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:41:48PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:46:10 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
>>> I really don't like hiding these trailing allocations from the compiler.
>>> Why can't something like this be done (totally untested):
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> index 118c40258d07..dae6df4fb177 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> @@ -2475,6 +2475,8 @@ struct net_device {
>>>   	/** @page_pools: page pools created for this netdevice */
>>>   	struct hlist_head	page_pools;
>>>   #endif
>>> +	u32			priv_size;
>>> +	u8			priv_data[] __counted_by(priv_size) __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
>>
>> I like, FWIW, please submit! :)
> 
> So, I found several cases where struct net_device is included in the
> middle of another structure, which makes my proposal more awkward. But I
> also don't understand why it's in the _middle_. Shouldn't it always be
> at the beginning (with priv stuff following it?)
> Quick search and examined manually: git grep 'struct net_device [a-z0-9_]*;'
> 
> struct rtw89_dev
> struct ath10k
> etc.
> 
> Some even have two included (?)
> 
> But I still like the idea -- Gustavo has been solving these cases with
> having two structs, e.g.:
> 
> struct net_device {
> 	...unchanged...
> };
> 
> struct net_device_alloc {
> 	struct net_device	dev;
> 	u32			priv_size;
> 	u8			priv_data[] __counted_by(priv_size) __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
> };
> 
> And internals can use struct net_device_alloc...

Yep, we should really consider going with the above, otherwise we would
have to do something like the following, to avoid having the flexible-array
member nested in the middle of other structs:

struct net_device {
	struct_group_tagged(net_device_hdr, hdr,
		...
		u32			priv_size;
	);
	u8			priv_data[] __counted_by(priv_size) __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
}

We are grouping together the members in `struct net_device`, except the
flexible-array member, into a tagged `struct net_device_hdr`. This allows
us to exclude the flex array from its inclusion in any other struct
that contains `struct net_device` as a member without having to create
a completely separate struct definition.

And let's take as example `struct hfi1_netdev_rx`, where `struct net_device` is
included in the beginning:

drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/netdev.h:
struct hfi1_netdev_rx {

-	struct net_device rx_napi;
+       struct net_device_hdr rx_napi;


         struct hfi1_devdata *dd;
         struct hfi1_netdev_rxq *rxq;
         int num_rx_q;
         int rmt_start;
         struct xarray dev_tbl;
         /* count of enabled napi polls */
         atomic_t enabled;
         /* count of netdevs on top */
         atomic_t netdevs;
};

Of course we would also have to update the code that access `struct net_device`
members through `rx_napi` in `struct hfi1_netdev_rx`.

I'm currently working on the above solution for all the cases where having two
separate structs is not currently feasible. And with that we are looking to enable
`-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end`

So, if we can prevent this from the beginning it'd be really great. :)

--
Gustavo