linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and unpack

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: <7492148c-6edd-4400-8fa8-e30209cca168@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:11:36 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
CC: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "Kitszel, Przemyslaw"
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/8] lib: packing: add pack_fields() and
 unpack_fields()



On 10/19/2024 5:20 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 02:50:52PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
>> Przemek, Vladimir,
>>
>> What are your thoughts on the next steps here. Do we need to go back to
>> the drawing board for how to handle these static checks?
>>
>> Do we try to reduce the size somewhat, or try to come up with a
>> completely different approach to handling this? Do we revert back to
>> run-time checks? Investigate some alternative for static checking that
>> doesn't have this limitation requiring thousands of lines of macro?
>>
>> I'd like to figure out what to do next.
> 
> Please see the attached patch for an idea on how to reduce the size
> of <include/generated/packing-checks.h>, in a way that should be
> satisfactory for both ice and sja1105, as well as future users.

This trades off generating the macros for an increase in the config
complexity. I suppose that is slightly better than generating thousands
of lines of macro... The unused macros sit on disk in the include file,
but i don't think they would impact the deployed code...

I'm still wondering if there is a different approach we can take to
validate these structures.