From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size()
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <481721c2c7fe570b4027dbe231d523961c953d5a.1696146232.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
> This is less verbose and more robust.
>
> While at it, prepare 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).
>
> Also remove a useless comment about the position of a flex-array in a
> structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
It seems the consensus is to keep the struct_size() changes together
with the __counted_by annotation, so yes, this looks correct to me:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
--
Kees Cook
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size()
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <481721c2c7fe570b4027dbe231d523961c953d5a.1696146232.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
> This is less verbose and more robust.
>
> While at it, prepare 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).
>
> Also remove a useless comment about the position of a flex-array in a
> structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
It seems the consensus is to keep the struct_size() changes together
with the __counted_by annotation, so yes, this looks correct to me:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
--
Kees Cook
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size()
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <481721c2c7fe570b4027dbe231d523961c953d5a.1696146232.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
> This is less verbose and more robust.
>
> While at it, prepare 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).
>
> Also remove a useless comment about the position of a flex-array in a
> structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
It seems the consensus is to keep the struct_size() changes together
with the __counted_by annotation, so yes, this looks correct to me:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size()
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:59:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <481721c2c7fe570b4027dbe231d523961c953d5a.1696146232.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
> This is less verbose and more robust.
>
> While at it, prepare 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).
>
> Also remove a useless comment about the position of a flex-array in a
> structure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
It seems the consensus is to keep the struct_size() changes together
with the __counted_by annotation, so yes, this looks correct to me:
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-09 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-01 7:44 [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: rockchip: Use struct_size() Christophe JAILLET
2023-10-01 7:44 ` Christophe JAILLET
2023-10-01 7:44 ` Christophe JAILLET
2023-10-01 7:44 ` Christophe JAILLET
2023-10-01 7:49 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-01 7:49 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-01 7:49 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-01 7:49 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2023-10-09 19:59 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2023-10-09 19:59 ` Kees Cook
2023-10-09 19:59 ` Kees Cook
2023-10-09 19:59 ` Kees Cook
2023-10-09 20:18 ` Heiko Stuebner
2023-10-09 20:18 ` Heiko Stuebner
2023-10-09 20:18 ` Heiko Stuebner
2023-10-09 20:18 ` Heiko Stuebner
2023-10-16 9:29 ` Miquel Raynal
2023-10-16 9:29 ` Miquel Raynal
2023-10-16 9:29 ` Miquel Raynal
2023-10-16 9:29 ` Miquel Raynal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202310091259.1D9E73DAE@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.