[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210820123400.GW543798@ziepe.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 09:34:00 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 56/63] RDMA/mlx5: Use struct_group() to zero struct
mlx5_ib_mr
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:14:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Which do you mean? When doing the conversions I tended to opt for
> struct_group() since it provides more robust "intentionality". Strictly
> speaking, the new memset helpers are doing field-spanning writes, but the
> "clear to the end" pattern was so common it made sense to add the helpers,
> as they're a bit less disruptive. It's totally up to you! :)
Well, of the patches you cc'd to me only this one used the struct
group..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists