[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60584f4c0303106b42463ddcfb108ec4a1f0b705.camel@perches.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 15:45:40 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] rds: Prevent kernel-infoleak
in rds_notify_queue_get()
On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 19:28 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 03:23:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 19:10 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 08:38:33AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm using {} instead of {0} because of this GCC bug.
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
> > >
> > > This is why the {} extension exists..
> >
> > There is no guarantee that the gcc struct initialization {}
> > extension also zeros padding.
>
> We just went over this. Yes there is, C11 requires it.
c11 is not c90. The kernel uses c90.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists