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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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) ?
Thanks,
Dragos
