[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210909161109.14b147628de07ed7c20d84ae@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 16:11:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
Alexandre Bounine <alex.bou9@...il.com>,
Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@...wei.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc_size warning
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 15:51:23 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > That's an "error", not a warning. Or is this thanks to the new -Werror?
>
> This is a "regular" error (__bad_copy_to() uses __compiletime_error()).
>
> > Either way, I'm inclined to cc:stable on this, because use of gcc-9 on
> > older kernels will be a common thing down the ages.
> >
> > If it's really an "error" on non-Werror kernels then definitely cc:stable.
>
> I would expect that as only being needed if __alloc_size was backported
> to -stable, which seems unlikely.
Ah. Changelog didn't tell me that it's an __alloc_size thing.
What's the status of the __alloc_size() patchset, btw?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists