linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] [next] dlm: replace one-element array with fixed size array

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 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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2022 14:37:40 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
To:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>
Cc:     Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>,
        David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [next] dlm: replace one-element array with fixed size
 array

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 08:28:54AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:24:50PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 08:15:17AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > > One-element arrays are deprecated. So, replace one-element array with
> > > fixed size array member in struct dlm_ls, and refactor the rest of the
> > > code, accordingly.
> > > 
> > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> > > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/228
> > > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y0W5jkiXUkpNl4ap@mail.google.com/
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>
> > 
> > I think this should be versioned as v3.
> > 
> I didn't add v3 here because the the patch got changed from 'replacing
> [1]-array with flex-array' to 'replacing [1]-array to fixed-size array'.

The issue remains the same, and there have been comments and feedback on
previous patches. So, yep, v3 seems appropiate for this patch. :)

> 
> Let me know if you still want me to send it as v3 instead.

I think next one would be v4.

Also, when versioning patches it is also necessary to include a version
change log.

Thanks
--
Gustavo