[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa9ef37903db0f81654451104b1407f60f85ce5d.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 16:25:17 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Haoyu Li <lihaoyu499@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, "Gustavo A . R . Silva"
<gustavoars@...nel.org>, Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: sme: Initialize n_channels before
accessing channels in cfg80211_conn_scan
On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 23:20 +0800, Haoyu Li wrote:
> With the new __counted_by annocation in cfg80211_scan_request struct,
> the "n_channels" struct member must be set before accessing the
> "channels" array. Failing to do so will trigger a runtime warning
> when enabling CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
>
> Fixes: e3eac9f32ec0 ("wifi: cfg80211: Annotate struct cfg80211_scan_request with __counted_by")
>
> Signed-off-by: Haoyu Li <lihaoyu499@...il.com>
nit: there should be no newline between these
My tolerance for this is going WAY down, it seems it's all just busy-
work, and then everyone complains and I need to handle "urgent fixes"
because of it etc.
I'm having severe second thoughts about ever having accepted the
__counted_by annotations, I think we should just revert it. Experiment
failed, we found ... that the code is fine but constantly needs changes
to make the checkers happy.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists