lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2][next] dlm: Replace one-element array with flexible-array member
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 03:35:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:00:39PM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 09:03:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 03:05:17PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 05:18:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > > This is allocating 1 more byte than before, since the struct size didn't change. But this has always allocated too much space, due to the struct padding. For a "no binary changes" patch, the above "+ 1" needs to be left off.
> > > >
> > > > That's true. I agree that leaving "+ 1" would work and produce a
> > > > no-binary-changes patch due to the existing padding that the structure
> > > > has. OTOH, I thought that relying on that space could bite us in the
> > > > future if anyone tweaks the struct again...so my reaction was to ensure
> > > > that the NUL-terminator space was always guaranteed to be there.
> > > > Hence, the change on c693 (objdump above).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think? Should we keep or leave the above
> > > > "+ 1" after the rationale above?
> > >
> > > I think it depends on what's expected from this allocation. Christine or
> > > David, can you speak to this?
> >
> > Hi, thanks for picking through that. Most likely the intention was to
> > allow up to 64 (DLM_LOCKSPACE_LEN) character names, and then use the
> > ls_name[1] for the terminating byte. I'd be happy to take the patch
>
> Should this just use:
>
> char ls_name[DLM_LOCKSPACE_LEN + 1];
>
> instead, or is the byte savings worth keeping it dynamically sized?

Yes, I think that's the best option.
Dave

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-11 17:34    [W:0.073 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site