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]
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700
From: Kees Cook <>
To: Christophe JAILLET <>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <>,
	Richard Weinberger <>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <>,
	Heiko Stuebner <>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <>,
	Nathan Chancellor <>,
	Nick Desaulniers <>,
	Tom Rix <>,,,,,,,
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 <>

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 <>

Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists