Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2023 11:42:38 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/9] drm: Annotate structs with __counted_by | From | Christian König <> |
| |
Am 02.10.23 um 20:22 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >> Am 02.10.23 um 20:08 schrieb Kees Cook: >>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:01:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >>>> Am 02.10.23 um 18:53 schrieb Kees Cook: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20 AM Christian König >>>>>> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>>>>>> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming >>>>>>>>> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible >>>>>>>>> array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses >>>>>>>>> bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array >>>>>>>>> indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by to structs that would >>>>>>>>> benefit from the annotation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> Since this got Acks, I figure I should carry it in my tree. Let me know >>>>>>>> if this should go via drm instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by >>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/a6046ac659d6 >>>>>>> STOP! In a follow up discussion Alex and I figured out that this won't work. >>>>> I'm so confused; from the discussion I saw that Alex said both instances >>>>> were false positives? >>>>> >>>>>>> The value in the structure is byte swapped based on some firmware >>>>>>> endianness which not necessary matches the CPU endianness. >>>>>> SMU10 is APU only so the endianess of the SMU firmware and the CPU >>>>>> will always match. >>>>> Which I think is what is being said here? >>>>> >>>>>>> Please revert that one from going upstream if it's already on it's way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And because of those reasons I strongly think that patches like this >>>>>>> should go through the DRM tree :) >>>>> Sure, that's fine -- please let me know. It was others Acked/etc. Who >>>>> should carry these patches? >>>> Probably best if the relevant maintainer pick them up individually. >>>> >>>> Some of those structures are filled in by firmware/hardware and only the >>>> maintainers can judge if that value actually matches what the compiler >>>> needs. >>>> >>>> We have cases where individual bits are used as flags or when the size is >>>> byte swapped etc... >>>> >>>> Even Alex and I didn't immediately say how and where that field is actually >>>> used and had to dig that up. That's where the confusion came from. >>> Okay, I've dropped them all from my tree. Several had Acks/Reviews, so >>> hopefully those can get picked up for the DRM tree? >> I will pick those up to go through drm-misc-next. >> >> Going to ping maintainers once more when I'm not sure if stuff is correct or >> not. > Sounds great; thanks!
I wasn't 100% sure for the VC4 patch, but pushed the whole set to drm-misc-next anyway.
This also means that the patches are now auto merged into the drm-tip integration branch and should any build or unit test go boom we should notice immediately and can revert it pretty easily.
Thanks, Christian.
> > -Kees >
| |