linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vt6656: Use ARRAY

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200325091924.GB15158@jiffies>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 09:19:24 +0000
From:   Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@...ev.co.uk>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>,
        Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@...il.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Gabriela Bittencourt <gabrielabittencourt00@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: vt6656: Use ARRAY_SIZE instead of hardcoded
 size

On 03/24/20 16:18:30, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> That's a bit over engineering something which is pretty trivial.
> Normally, we would just make the size a define instead of a magic number
> 14.

My bad, I meant "define", not "macro".

> If people change the size in the future (unlikely) and it causes a bug
> then they kind of deserve it because they need to ensure all the new
> stuff is initialized, right?  If they change it and it results in a
> buffer overflow then static checkers would complain.  If they changed it
> and it resulted in uninitialized data being used then it would be zero
> so that's okay.

I wasn't sure where I should stand on this, that's clearer now.

Thanks,
Quentin