From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] block: Fix a buffer overrun in bio_integrity_split() Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:57:45 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1350331769-14856-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1350331769-14856-28-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20121019203015.GS13370@google.com> <20121022153907.GC3401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Tejun Heo's message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:42:46 -0400") Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Vivek Goyal , Kent Overstreet , linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Tejun" == Tejun Heo writes: Tejun> If Martin is happy with it, I'm not gonna push it but putting the Tejun> respective storage member after one containing vararray at the Tejun> end is a legit way to allocate the area statically. As long as Tejun> the storage field is marked as such and not accessed directly, it Tejun> doesn't matter whether there's padding inbetween or not. The embedded array is still at the end. Kent just added an explicit pointer for use in the bio_pair corner case. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering