linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390: disable -Warray-bounds

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

Message-ID: <4147483.1654784079@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 09 Jun 2022 15:14:39 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, dchinner@...hat.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390: disable -Warray-bounds

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Yeah. Happily, this has already been solved, but it looks like David didn't do a pull yet for it?
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=fscache-next
> 
> Good.

Do you want it tagging and a pull req generating, even though it's a single
patch?

Note that Dave Chinner would rather I converted code like:

	struct myfs_inode *myfsinode = xyz;
	myfsinode->netfs.inode.i_ino = 123;

to something like:

	struct myfs_inode *myfsinode = xyz;
	struct inode *inode = VFS_I(myfsinode);
	inode->i_ino = 123;

where the translation is wrapped inside a VFS_I() macro in every filesystem
and wants this across all filesystems.  I think the former looks cleaner, but
he has a point about how to deal with yet another layer of wrapping being
inserted in the future.  Do you have a preference?

David