[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f83947fe-8a80-8693-56bd-76cb6f37317e@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:49:22 -0700
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: <hpa@...or.com>, <john.hubbard@...il.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
<x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly
On 7/24/19 7:12 PM, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> On July 24, 2019 4:15:28 PM PDT, john.hubbard@...il.com wrote:
>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
...
>> + boot_params->ext_ramdisk_image = 0;
>> + boot_params->ext_ramdisk_size = 0;
>> + boot_params->ext_cmd_line_ptr = 0;
>> +
>> + memset(&boot_params->_pad4, 0, sizeof(boot_params->_pad4));
>> memset(&boot_params->_pad7[0], 0,
>> (char *)&boot_params->edd_mbr_sig_buffer[0] -
>> (char *)&boot_params->_pad7[0]);
>
> The problem with this is that it will break silently when changes are made to this structure.
>
> So, that is a NAK from me.
>
Understood. It occurs to me, though, that it would be trivial to
just add build time assertions to check a few struct member offset
values, and fail out if they changed. That would give us everything:
warnings-free builds, and no silent failures.
Thoughts?
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists