linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	"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-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
	llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size()

On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:44:04AM +0200, 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).
> 
> Also remove a useless comment about the position of a flex-array in a
> structure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>

It seems the consensus is to keep the struct_size() changes together
with the __counted_by annotation, so yes, this looks correct to me:

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook