Re: [RFC/PATCH] vdpa/mlx5: Fix buffer length in create_direct_keys()

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>]

Am 06.07.26 um 14:24 schrieb Dragos Tatulea:
> 
> 
> On 06.07.26 12:13, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 06.07.26 um 12:01 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
>>> We have seen in our CI the following KASAN message:
>>> BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in cmd_exec+0x550/0xca0 [mlx5_core]
>>> Read of size 272 at addr 0000000176795020 by task qemu-system-s39/82764
>>> [...]
>>> [<000011388ab3a7a0>] cmd_exec+0x550/0xca0 [mlx5_core]
>>> [<000011388ab3b61c>] mlx5_cmd_exec_cb+0x25c/0x4f0 [mlx5_core]
>>> [<000011388b21e82e>] mlx5_vdpa_exec_async_cmds+0x22e/0x5e0 [mlx5_vdpa]
>>> [<000011388b21fd44>] create_direct_keys+0x954/0xef0 [mlx5_vdpa]
>>> [...]
>>> The buggy address is located 4128 bytes inside of
>>> allocated 4384-byte region [0000000176794000, 0000000176795120)
>>>
>>> So in essence we read 16 bytes beyond 4384-byte allocation.
>>> create_direct_keys calculates the pointer and length for in and out
>>> buffers.
>>> The size calculation for in includes the entire structure
>>> size (out + in + mtt[]) but the pointer passed to cmd_exec points only
>>> to the 'in' field, skipping the 'out' field.
>>>
>>> This causes mlx5_copy_to_msg() to read beyond the allocated buffer
>>> by sizeof(out) bytes when copying command data.
>>>
>>> Calculates the input size as sizeof(in) + mtt_array_size to match the
>>> pointer and allocation size.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0071b138d44a ("vdpa/mlx5: Create direct MKEYs in parallel")
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
>>> index 6d02ccf9eb91..03fe7f5ca412 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/core/mr.c
>>> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ static int create_direct_keys(struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mr *
>>>    		cmds[i].out = cmd_mem->out;
>>>    		cmds[i].outlen = sizeof(cmd_mem->out);
>>>    		cmds[i].in = cmd_mem->in;
>>> -		cmds[i].inlen = struct_size(cmd_mem, mtt, mttcount);
>>> +		cmds[i].inlen = sizeof(cmd_mem->in) + (mttcount * sizeof(cmd_mem->mtt[0]));
> Woops... Thanks for the catch. The fix is good.
> 
>>
>> Assuming the fix is the correct fix, question is, if I should use the offset of in instead, e.g.
>>
>> 		cmds[i].inlen = struct_size(cmd_mem, mtt, mttcount) - offsetof(cmd_mem, in);
>>
>> to handle potential alignment and padding aspects.
>>
> Seems harder to read. Why not:
> sizeof(cmd_mem->in) + flex_array_size(cmd_mem, mtts, mttcount) ?

Can do that. I assume we do not have any implicit holes in the structure due to alignment? In
other words, sizeof(cmd_mem->in) can never be something like 20 (and then the flex array would
start at 24 to align 8 byte elements). If thats the case I will respin with your proposal.