linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Use struct

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: <fdc46489-4266-48e3-99cc-ddb23b64f02e@kadam.mountain>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 10:06:54 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Use struct_size()

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:42:06AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:23:17AM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/1/23 09:13, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
> > > This is less verbose and more robust.
> > > 
> > > While at it, prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the
> > > __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by
> > > can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via
> > > CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for
> > > strcpy/memcpy-family functions).
> > 
> > I would prefer this as two separate patches.
> > 
> 
> I kind of feel like it's all part of one thing.  It's easier to review
> as one patch.

Also I think there is static analysis which sees struct_size()
allocations and pushes people to use __counted_by() so doing it in two
steps is sort of like introducing a static checker bug and then
silencing it in the next patch.

regards,
dan carpenter