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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 08:50:04 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     "Coelho\, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
Cc:     "tiwai\@suse.de" <tiwai@...e.de>,
        "linux-wireless\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iwlwifi: dbg: Mark ucode tlv data as const

"Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com> writes:

> 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.

Ok, I'll apply this to wireless-drivers-next after wireless-drivers is
merged to -next. It might take a while.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches