Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 1 Jul 2023 08:27:25 +0200 | From | Christian Brauner <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] pid: use flex array |
| |
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:59:47AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:04:14AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 12:12:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 23:51, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have no preference for either syntax. Both work. But this is probably > > > > more an objection to this being mixed in with the flex array change in > > > > the first place. > > > > > > Yes. I looked at it, and tried to figure out if it was related > > > somehow, and decided that no, it can't possibly be, and must be just > > > an unrelated change. > > Yes, those changes were style changes because I was annoyed that a grep > for 'numbers[' didn't turn anything up. :P Since it's an array I think > it's just good form to use [] when accessing an element. But yes, it's > conceptually the same. > > > > > I did react to that in the original review here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230518-zuneigen-brombeeren-0a57cd32b1a7@brauner > > > > but then I grepped for it and saw it done in a few other places already > > > > > > Yeah, we do end up growing new uses of 'use 0 as a pointer' almost as > > > quickly as we get rid of them. > > Apologies on this -- this patch was just before the addition of > struct_size_t(), so I missed it in the cleanup I did for that: > https://git.kernel.org/linus/d67790ddf0219aa0ad3e13b53ae0a7619b3425a2 > > > I've grepped around a bit and I saw that the > > struct_size((struct bla *)NULL, ...) > > pattern seems to be used in most places that have similar needs. Not > > sure if there's something nicer. > > The above patch fixes them all (excepting struct pid). In retrospect, I > should have asked to carry the struct pid fix in the hardening tree due > to that. > > > I gave this thing a stab myself since I have a few minutes and so Kees > > doesn't have to do it. Authorship retained and dropped the ack. Is the > > following more acceptable? > > Thanks for reworking it! > > > [...] > > [brauner: dropped unrelated changes and remove 0 with NULL cast] > > However, this should use struct_size_t(); I'll send a new patch and > double check that UBSAN stays happy, etc.
I think Linus already applied it let me quickly send a follow-up replacing the two open-coded cases with struct_size_t(). I didn't know this existed and I think when you originally send the patch it didn't.
| |