On 12/12/25 16:13, Simon Horman wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 07:32:01AM +0000, Frode Nordahl wrote:
The struct ip_tunnel_info has a flexible array member named options that is protected by a counted_by(options_len) attribute.
The compiler will use this information to enforce runtime bounds checking deployed by FORTIFY_SOURCE string helpers.
As laid out in the GCC documentation, the counter must be initialized before the first reference to the flexible array member.
In the normal case the ip_tunnel_info_opts_set() helper is used which would initialize options_len properly, however in the GRE ERSPAN code a partial update is done, preventing the use of the helper function.
Before this change the handling of ERSPAN traffic in GRE tunnels would cause a kernel panic when the kernel is compiled with GCC 15+ and having FORTIFY_SOURCE configured:
memcpy: detected buffer overflow: 4 byte write of buffer size 0
Call Trace:
<IRQ> __fortify_panic+0xd/0xf erspan_rcv.cold+0x68/0x83 ? ip_route_input_slow+0x816/0x9d0 gre_rcv+0x1b2/0x1c0 gre_rcv+0x8e/0x100 ? raw_v4_input+0x2a0/0x2b0 ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x1ea/0x210 ip_local_deliver_finish+0x86/0x110 ip_local_deliver+0x65/0x110 ? ip_rcv_finish_core+0xd6/0x360 ip_rcv+0x186/0x1a0
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Variable-Attributes.html#index-cou... Reported-at: https://launchpad.net/bugs/2129580 Fixes: bb5e62f2d547 ("net: Add options as a flexible array to struct ip_tunnel_info") Signed-off-by: Frode Nordahl fnordahl@ubuntu.com
Hi Frode,
Thanks for your patch (and nice to see you recently in Prague :).
Thank you for taking the time to review, much appreciated (I enjoyed the recent conference in Prague and our exchanges there!).
Overall this looks good to me but I have some minor feedback.
Firstly, the cited patch seems to cover more than erspan. So I'm wondering if you took at look at other cases where this might occur? No problem either way, but if so it might be worth mentioning in the commit message.
I did some quick searches which formed the basis of the statement of the normal case being to use the ip_tunnel_info_opts_set(), I could expand a bit upon that statement.
Regarding the comments in the code. I am wondering if the are necessary as the information is also contained in the commit message. And if the source documented every such case then things could get rather verbose.
If you do feel strongly about it keeping it then could I ask that (other than the URL) it is line-wrapped trimmed to 80 columns wide or less, as is still preferred for Networking (but confusingly not all Kernel) code.
Yes, I guess it became a bit verbose. The thought was that it would be very easy to miss this important detail for anyone (including future me) spelunking into this part of the code.
I'll trim it down to a single line, which should be enough to give the urge to look at the commit message.
As a fix for code present in net this should be targeted at that tree. It's best to do so explicitly like this:
Subject: [PATCH net] ...
Ack.
And it's probably also best to CC stable@vger.kernel.org. That practice isn't as widespread as perhaps it should be for Networking code. But it does seem worth mentioning.
Ack, the intention was indeed to Cc them, I only put them into the e-mail header and the stable kernel bot pointed out that the Cc also needs to be in the commit message.