linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: kunit: make read-only array buf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 00:22:28 +0100
From: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@...il.com>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>,
 Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
 Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
 kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] ALSA: kunit: make read-only array buf_samples
 static const

On 4/26/24 16:08, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:05:34 +0200,
> Ivan Orlov wrote:
>>
>> On 4/26/24 00:22, Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 05:07:54PM +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> Don't populate the read-only array buf_samples on the stack at
>>>> run time, instead make it static const.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.i.king@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    sound/core/sound_kunit.c | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/sound/core/sound_kunit.c b/sound/core/sound_kunit.c
>>>> index eb90f62228c0..e34c4317f5eb 100644
>>>> --- a/sound/core/sound_kunit.c
>>>> +++ b/sound/core/sound_kunit.c
>>>> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void _test_fill_silence(struct kunit *test, struct snd_format_test_data *
>>>>      static void test_format_fill_silence(struct kunit *test)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	u32 buf_samples[] = { 10, 20, 32, 64, 129, SILENCE_BUFFER_MAX_FRAMES };
>>>> +	static const u32 buf_samples[] = { 10, 20, 32, 64, 129, SILENCE_BUFFER_MAX_FRAMES };
>>>>    	u8 *buffer;
>>>>    	u32 i, j;
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Takashi Sakamoto <o-takashi@...amocchi.jp>
>>>
>>> We can see the other similar cases in the kunit file. I'll post the fix
>>> later.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Takashi,
>>
>> Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any other significant
>> allocations on the stack in the test.
> 
> I guess he meant slightly different ones
>    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240425233653.218434-1-o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp
> 

Ah, alright, found it. Thank you!

-- 
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov