netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Avoid VLA usage

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: <0046335b-c9a5-9da5-244c-46fe6f2e5a5b@st.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 16:22:18 +0200
From:   Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
To:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:     Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: Avoid VLA usage



On 05/02/2018 04:07 PM, Jose Abreu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02-05-2018 13:36, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Kees,
>>>
>>> On 01-05-2018 22:01, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>> In the quest to remove all stack VLAs from the kernel[1], this switches
>>>> the "status" stack buffer to use the existing small (8) upper bound on
>>>> how many queues can be checked for DMA, and adds a sanity-check just to
>>>> make sure it doesn't operate under pathological conditions.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lkml.kernel.org_r_CA-2B55aFzCG-2DzNmZwX4A2FQpadafLfEzK6CC-3DqPXydAacU1RqZWA-40mail.gmail.com&d=DwIBAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=WHDsc6kcWAl4i96Vm5hJ_19IJiuxx_p_Rzo2g-uHDKw&m=TBD6a7UY2VbpPmV9LOW_eHAyg8uPq1ZPDhq93VROTVE&s=4fvOST1HhWmZ4lThQe-dHCJYEXNOwey00BCXOWm8tKo&e=
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>>
>>> I rather prefer the variables declaration in reverse-tree order,
>>> but thats just a minor pick.
>> I can explicitly reorder the other variables, if you want?
> 
> No need by me, unless Giuseppe or Alexandre prefer that. Thanks!

No need.

> 
> Best Regards,
> Jose Miguel Abreu
> 
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> PS: Is VLA warning switch in gcc already active? Because I didn't
>>> see this warning in my builds.
>> It is not. A bunch of people have been building with KCFLAGS=-Wvla to
>> find the VLAs and sending patches. Once we get rid of them all, we can
>> add the flag to the top-level Makefile.
>>
>> -Kees
>>
>