netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: dbg: Mark ucode tlv data as const

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: <636fdc5b53b6f4855e25981e0454064524e6905d.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:13:59 +0000
From:   "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "tiwai@...e.de" <tiwai@...e.de>
CC:     "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: dbg: Mark ucode tlv data as const

On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 17:05 +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:50:54 +0100,
> Kalle Valo wrote:
> > 
> > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> writes:
> > 
> > > The ucode TLV data may be read-only and should be treated as const
> > > pointers, but currently a few code forcibly cast to the writable
> > > pointer unnecessarily.  This gave developers a wrong impression as if
> > > it can be modified, resulting in crashing regressions already a couple
> > > of times.
> > > 
> > > This patch adds the const prefix to those cast pointers, so that such
> > > attempt can be caught more easily in future.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
> > 
> > So this need to go to -next, right?
> 
> Yes, this isn't urgently needed for 5.11.

Acked-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>


> > Does this depend on patch 1 or can
> > this be applied independently?
> 
> It depends on the first patch, otherwise you'll get the warning in the
> code changing the const data (it must warn -- that's the purpose of
> this change :)
> 
> So, if applying to a separate branch is difficult, applying together
> for 5.11 would be an option.

It doesn't matter to me how you apply it.  Applying together is
obviously going to be easier, but applying separately wouldn't be that
hard either.  You'd just have to track when 1/2 went into net-next
before applying this one.  Kalle's call.

--
Cheers,
Luca.