Re: [PATCH v2] overflow: Change DEFINE_FLEX to take __counted_by member

From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
	Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] overflow: Change DEFINE_FLEX to take __counted_by member
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:28:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240311092813.GJ24043@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202403091230.ACF639521@keescook>

On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:32:45PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:20:18PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > The norm should be flexible array structures with __counted_by
> > > annotations, so DEFINE_FLEX() is updated to expect that. Rename
> > > the non-annotated version to DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(), and update the
> > > few existing users.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > 
> > Hi Kees,
> > 
> > I'm unclear what this is based on, as it doesn't appear to apply
> > cleanly to net-next or the dev-queue branch of the iwl-next tree.
> > But I manually applied it to the latter and ran some checks.
> 
> It was based on v6.8-rc2, but it no longer applies cleanly to iwl-next:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20240307162958.02ec485c@canb.auug.org.au/
> 
> Is this something iwl-next can take for the v6.9 merge window? I can
> send a rebased patch if that helps?

Thanks Kees,

I think that would help in the sense that from my POV it would
be more in fitting with the usual workflow for netdev patches.

But if the iwl maintainers think otherwise then I have no objections.

> 
> > > @@ -396,9 +396,9 @@ static inline size_t __must_check size_sub(size_t minuend, size_t subtrahend)
> > >   * @name: Name for a variable to define.
> > >   * @member: Name of the array member.
> > >   * @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
> > > - * @initializer: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
> > > + * @initializer...: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
> > 
> > Curiously kernel-doc --none seems happier without the line above changed.
> 
> I've fixed this up too:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/202403071124.36DC2B617A@keescook/
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> 