From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhe@redhat.com, oxu@redhat.com,
berrange@redhat.com, kernel-team@meta.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kexec: Initialize kexec_buf struct in image_load()
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:40:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aK3HVqt6I5KxoHia@J2N7QTR9R3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250826-akpm-v1-1-3c831f0e3799@debian.org>
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 05:08:51AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:
> The kexec_buf structure was previously declared without initialization
> in image_load(). This led to a UBSAN warning when the structure was
> expanded and uninitialized fields were accessed [1].
Just to check my understanding, is that only a problem for new fields
(e.g. the 'random' field added in [1]), or do we have UBSAN warnigns for
any existing fields? I assume there's no problem with existing fields
today.
> Zero-initializing kexec_buf at declaration ensures all fields are
> cleanly set, preventing future instances of uninitialized memory being
> used.
>
> Andrew Morton suggested that this function is only called 3x a week[2],
> thus, the memset() cost is inexpressive.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/oninomspajhxp4omtdapxnckxydbk2nzmrix7rggmpukpnzadw@c67o7njgdgm3/ [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250825180531.94bfb86a26a43127c0a1296f@linux-foundation.org/ [2]
> Suggested-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
This looks fine to me, but I reckon it should be added to the series
which extends kexec_buf, unless there's some reason to avoid that?
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
IIUC arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c would need the same
treatment in load_other_segments().
If other architectures need this, it'd probably make sense to clean that
up treewide in one go. It looks like at least riscv and s390 need that
from a quick grep:
| [mark@lakrids:~/src/linux]% git grep -w 'struct kexec_buf .*;'
| arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c: struct kexec_buf kbuf;
| arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: struct kexec_buf kbuf;
| arch/powerpc/include/asm/kexec.h:int arch_kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
| arch/powerpc/include/asm/kexec.h: struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
| arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c: struct kexec_buf kbuf;
| arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c: struct kexec_buf kbuf;
| arch/riscv/kernel/elf_kexec.c: struct kexec_buf kbuf;
| arch/s390/kernel/kexec_elf.c: struct kexec_buf buf;
| arch/s390/kernel/kexec_image.c: struct kexec_buf buf;
| arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: struct kexec_buf buf;
| arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: struct kexec_buf buf;
| arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: struct kexec_buf buf;
| include/linux/kexec.h:int kexec_load_purgatory(struct kimage *image, struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
| include/linux/kexec.h:extern int kexec_add_buffer(struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
| include/linux/kexec.h:int kexec_locate_mem_hole(struct kexec_buf *kbuf);
| kernel/kexec_file.c: struct kexec_buf *kbuf = (struct kexec_buf *)arg;
Mark.
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c
> index 532d72ea42ee8..b70f4df15a1ae 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void *image_load(struct kimage *image,
> struct arm64_image_header *h;
> u64 flags, value;
> bool be_image, be_kernel;
> - struct kexec_buf kbuf;
> + struct kexec_buf kbuf = {};
> unsigned long text_offset, kernel_segment_number;
> struct kexec_segment *kernel_segment;
> int ret;
>
> ---
> base-commit: 7a77c6b5ce68a71b9102760a988a4564ff6d4106
> change-id: 20250826-akpm-18a57e3a39fd
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-26 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-26 12:08 Breno Leitao
2025-08-26 12:54 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-08-26 14:40 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2025-08-26 15:26 ` Breno Leitao
2025-08-27 1:07 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aK3HVqt6I5KxoHia@J2N7QTR9R3 \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oxu@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®