From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270520AbTG1UGl (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:06:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270585AbTG1UGl (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:06:41 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:12487 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270520AbTG1UGj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:06:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:54:49 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Alan Cox Cc: ldl@aros.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PATCH: fix 2 byte data leak due to padding Message-Id: <20030728125449.31981939.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1059391969.15438.16.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> References: <200307272019.h6RKJ1Et029763@hraefn.swansea.linux.org.uk> <3F249D42.4010003@aros.net> <1059391969.15438.16.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > > On Llu, 2003-07-28 at 04:49, Lou Langholtz wrote: > > >+ memset(&tmp, 0, sizeof(struct __old_kernel_stat)); > > > > > Wouldn't it be more clear (better) to use sizeof(tmp) here rather than > > sizeof(struct _old_kernel_stat)? > > sizeof(variable) can be suprising some times so I always use sizeof(type) out > of habit. (Think sizeof(x) when X later becomes a pointer) #define memzero(addr) memset(addr, 0, sizeof(*addr)) would robustify a lot of these things...