linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] [next] drm/radeon: Replace one-element array with flexible-array member

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: <Y2GMEjB4NQ3RYk2C@mail.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:13:54 +1300
From:   Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>
To:     Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@...il.com>
Cc:     Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        "Pan, Xinhui" <Xinhui.Pan@....com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [next] drm/radeon: Replace one-element array with
 flexible-array member

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 10:42:14AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:32 PM Paulo Miguel Almeida
> <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> > flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> > flexible-array member in struct _ATOM_FAKE_EDID_PATCH_RECORD and
> > refactor the rest of the code accordingly.
> >
> > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch results
> > in no binary output differences.
> >
> > This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> > routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> > enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
> 
> This seems like a worthy goal, and I'm not opposed to the patch per
> se, but it seems a bit at odds with what this header represents.
> atombios.h represents the memory layout of the data stored in the ROM
> on the GPU.  This changes the memory layout of that ROM.  We can work
> around that in the driver code, but if someone were to take this
> header to try and write some standalone tool or use it for something
> else in the kernel, it would not reflect reality.
> 
> Alex
> 
Hi Alex, thanks for taking the time to review this patch.

I see where you are coming from and why you may be apprehensive with the
approach. From my humble point of view, I think that the artificial line
that separates "what we can change at will" and "what we should be extra
careful not to break/confuse others" is whether the header file is part 
of the UAPI. Given that atombios.h isn't publicly accessible, I tend to
gravitate towards the first one.

> > +  /* empty fake edid record must be 3 bytes long */
> +    sizeof(ATOM_FAKE_EDID_PATCH_RECORD) + 1;

I am assuming that this is the part of the patch that makes you feel
concerned about how devs will get it (should they copy this header),
is that right? 

If so, would a comment on the ATOM_FAKE_EDID_PATCH_RECORD struct
specifying the size of the struct when empty do the trick? 

- Paulo A.