linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20210909224814.7460f8dfa3134742b90b34eb@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 9 Sep 2021 22:48:14 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        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>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rapidio: Avoid bogus __alloc_size warning

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 07:50:10 +0300 Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 06:52:27PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 04:11:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Er, it's in the Subject, but I guess I could repeat it?
> > 
> 
> This is how the email looks like to Andrew.
> 
> https://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/images/sylpheed2-mainwindow.png
> 
> Try to find the subject in that nonsense.  Same for everyone else on
> email as well.
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163120404328790&w=2
> 
> I only either read the subject or the body of the commit message and
> never both.  :P

I read the body if the subject looks relevant ;)

But that subject reads to me as "rapidio: Avoid bogus *blah* warning". 
We have soooooo many alloc_foo functions that one's eyes glaze over
something like "alloc_size"

Why?  Because the identifier "__alloc_size" is of great significance
to Kees because he wrote the thing.  Everyone else just sees "*blah*".