Re: [syzbot] WARNING in u32_change

[Jamal Hadi Salim]

Yes, after testing i realize there is nothing wrong here.
What warning was i supposed to see from running the reproducer?

We will still add the test will multiple keys later

cheers,
jamal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 12:29 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 9:14 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 11:38 AM Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a way to tell the boat "looking into it?"
> >
> >
> > I guess I have to swim across to it to get the message;->
> >
> > I couldnt see the warning message  but it is obvious by inspection that
> > the memcpy is broken. We should add more test coverage.
> > This should fix it. Will send a formal patch later:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sched/cls_u32.c b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> > index 4d27300c2..591cbbf27 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
> > @@ -1019,7 +1019,7 @@ static int u32_change(struct net *net, struct
> > sk_buff *in_skb,
> >         }
> >
> >         s = nla_data(tb[TCA_U32_SEL]);
> > -       sel_size = struct_size(s, keys, s->nkeys);
> > +       sel_size = struct_size(s, keys, s->nkeys) + sizeof(n->sel);
> >         if (nla_len(tb[TCA_U32_SEL]) < sel_size) {
> >                 err = -EINVAL;
> >                 goto erridr;
>
> This patch is not needed, please look at struct_size() definition.
>
> Here, we might switch to unsafe_memcpy() instead of memcpy()