linux-kernel - Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH][next] nouveau/gsp: replace zero-length array with flex-array member and use __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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2023 02:01:25 +0100
From:   Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To:     Timur Tabi <ttabi@...dia.com>,
        "gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc:     "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH][next] nouveau/gsp: replace zero-length array
 with flex-array member and use __counted_by

On 11/16/23 20:55, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 20:45 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> As I already mentioned for Timur's patch [2], I'd prefer to get a fix
>> upstream
>> (meaning [1] in this case). Of course, that's probably more up to Timur to
>> tell
>> if this will work out.
> 
> Don't count on it.

I see. Well, I think it's fine. Once we implement a decent abstraction we likely
don't need those header files in the kernel anymore.

@Gustavo, if you agree I will discard the indentation change when applying the
patch to keep the diff as small as possible.

- Danilo

> 
> Even if I did change [0] to [], I'm not going to be able to add the
> "__counted_by(numEntries);" because that's just not something that our build
> system uses.
> 
> And even then, I would need to change all [0] to [].
> 
> You're not going to be able to use RM's header files as-is anyway in the
> long term.  If we changed the layout of PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE, we're not
> going to create a PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE2 and keep both around.  We're just
> going to change PACKED_REGISTRY_TABLE and pretend the previous version never
> existed.  You will then have to manually copy the new struct to your header
> files and and maintain two versions yourself.
> 
> 
>