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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231018220407.b5dvm2ehibcqvhzq@moria.home.lan> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:04:07 -0400 From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Refactor bkey_i to use a flexible array On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 04:44:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > Hi Kees, > > > > I'm curious if this is something that could be buried in bch_val given > > it's already kind of a fake structure..? If not, my only nitty comment > > I was thinking it would be best to keep the flexible array has "high" in > the struct as possible, as in the future more refactoring will be needed > to avoid having flex arrays overlap with other members in composite > structures. So instead of pushing into bch_val, I left it at the highest > level possible, bch_i, as that's the struct being used by the memcpy(). I agree with Brian here - I'd like this buried in bch_val, if possible. I also went with unsafe_memcpy() for now - that's now in my for-next tree. I'm not seeing any advantage of DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY over that - perhaps later if we could use __counted_by that would make more sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists