[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202405011317.AF41B94B@keescook>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 13:21:42 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
arithmetic
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:40:58PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
>
> So personally I detest struct_size() because I can never remember wtf it
> does, whereas the code it replaces is simple and straight forward :/
Sure, new APIs can involved a learning curve. If we can all handle
container_of(), we can deal with struct_size(). :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists