[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2587c245-1d02-22a2-d24b-90b498183fc9@synopsys.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 09:54:36 +0100
From: Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Avoid VLA usage
Hi Kees,
On 01-05-2018 22:01, Kees Cook wrote:
> In the quest to remove all stack VLAs from the kernel[1], this switches
> the "status" stack buffer to use the existing small (8) upper bound on
> how many queues can be checked for DMA, and adds a sanity-check just to
> make sure it doesn't operate under pathological conditions.
>
> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lkml.kernel.org_r_CA-2B55aFzCG-2DzNmZwX4A2FQpadafLfEzK6CC-3DqPXydAacU1RqZWA-40mail.gmail.com&d=DwIBAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=WHDsc6kcWAl4i96Vm5hJ_19IJiuxx_p_Rzo2g-uHDKw&m=TBD6a7UY2VbpPmV9LOW_eHAyg8uPq1ZPDhq93VROTVE&s=4fvOST1HhWmZ4lThQe-dHCJYEXNOwey00BCXOWm8tKo&e=
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
I rather prefer the variables declaration in reverse-tree order,
but thats just a minor pick.
Reviewed-by: Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>
Thanks and Best Regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu
PS: Is VLA warning switch in gcc already active? Because I didn't
see this warning in my builds.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists