netdev - Re: [PATCH 08/17] ath11k: Use memset_startat() for clearing queue descriptors

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: <202112140904.2D64E570@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 14 Dec 2021 09:05:37 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] ath11k: Use memset_startat() for clearing queue
 descriptors

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:46:31PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> >
> >> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time
> >> field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across
> >> neighboring fields.
> >>
> >> Use memset_startat() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing
> >> beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point
> >> of zeroing through the end of the struct. Additionally split up a later
> >> field-spanning memset() so that memset() can reason about the size.
> >>
> >> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
> >> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
> >> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: ath11k@...ts.infradead.org
> >> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
> >> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> >
> > What's the plan for this patch? I would like to take this via my ath
> > tree to avoid conflicts.
> 
> Actually this has been already applied:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/commit/?h=ath-next&id=d5549e9a6b86
> 
> Why are you submitting the same patch twice?

These are all part of a topic branch, and the cover letter mentioned
that a set of them have already been taken but haven't appeared in -next
(which was delayed).

Sorry for the confusion!

-- 
Kees Cook