linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] overflow: Change DEFINE_FLEX to take __counted

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:38:02 -0700
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Jesse Brandeburg
	<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] overflow: Change DEFINE_FLEX to take __counted_by
 member



On 3/11/2024 2:28 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:32:45PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:20:18PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> The norm should be flexible array structures with __counted_by
>>>> annotations, so DEFINE_FLEX() is updated to expect that. Rename
>>>> the non-annotated version to DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(), and update the
>>>> few existing users.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>
>>> Hi Kees,
>>>
>>> I'm unclear what this is based on, as it doesn't appear to apply
>>> cleanly to net-next or the dev-queue branch of the iwl-next tree.
>>> But I manually applied it to the latter and ran some checks.
>>
>> It was based on v6.8-rc2, but it no longer applies cleanly to iwl-next:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20240307162958.02ec485c@canb.auug.org.au/
>>
>> Is this something iwl-next can take for the v6.9 merge window? I can
>> send a rebased patch if that helps?
> 
> Thanks Kees,
> 
> I think that would help in the sense that from my POV it would
> be more in fitting with the usual workflow for netdev patches.
> 
> But if the iwl maintainers think otherwise then I have no objections.

I can take this through iwl-next. A rebase would be great and if you 
mark it for iwl-next ('PATCH iwl-next') so that everyone is clear on 
target tree. Just to note since net-next is now closed, it would be 
going to 6.10.

Thanks,
Tony

>>
>>>> @@ -396,9 +396,9 @@ static inline size_t __must_check size_sub(size_t minuend, size_t subtrahend)
>>>>    * @name: Name for a variable to define.
>>>>    * @member: Name of the array member.
>>>>    * @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
>>>> - * @initializer: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
>>>> + * @initializer...: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
>>>
>>> Curiously kernel-doc --none seems happier without the line above changed.
>>
>> I've fixed this up too:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/202403071124.36DC2B617A@keescook/
>>
>> -- 
>> Kees Cook
>>