linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] md/md-linear: Annotate struct linear_conf with __counted

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: <CAPhsuW6RfCryssufHjWHRdUGCh2DywnNNtidZ-UxEWvwo4gcbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 16:40:13 -0700
From:   Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] md/md-linear: Annotate struct linear_conf with __counted_by

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:21 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 13:03:28 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by
> > attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have
> > their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS
> > (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family
> > functions).
> >
> > As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by for struct linear_conf.
> > Additionally, since the element count member must be set before accessing
> > the annotated flexible array member, move its initialization earlier.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks!
>
> [1/1] md/md-linear: Annotate struct linear_conf with __counted_by
>       https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/9add7681e09b

Hmm..

Jens pulled this into his for-next branch and for-6.7/block branch
earlier today:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-block.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=e887544d7620f1d3cef017e45df7bc625182caff

Do we need to do anything about this (drop one of them)?

Thanks,
Song