On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:11:41PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 02.10.23 um 20:08 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 08:01:57PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > > > Am 02.10.23 um 18:53 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20 AM Christian König > > > > > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing 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). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by to structs that would > > > > > > > > benefit from the annotation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Since this got Acks, I figure I should carry it in my tree. Let me know > > > > > > > if this should go via drm instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/a6046ac659d6 > > > > > > STOP! In a follow up discussion Alex and I figured out that this won't work. > > > > I'm so confused; from the discussion I saw that Alex said both instances > > > > were false positives? > > > > > > > > > > The value in the structure is byte swapped based on some firmware > > > > > > endianness which not necessary matches the CPU endianness. > > > > > SMU10 is APU only so the endianess of the SMU firmware and the CPU > > > > > will always match. > > > > Which I think is what is being said here? > > > > > > > > > > Please revert that one from going upstream if it's already on it's way. > > > > > > > > > > > > And because of those reasons I strongly think that patches like this > > > > > > should go through the DRM tree :) > > > > Sure, that's fine -- please let me know. It was others Acked/etc. Who > > > > should carry these patches? > > > Probably best if the relevant maintainer pick them up individually. > > > > > > Some of those structures are filled in by firmware/hardware and only the > > > maintainers can judge if that value actually matches what the compiler > > > needs. > > > > > > We have cases where individual bits are used as flags or when the size is > > > byte swapped etc... > > > > > > Even Alex and I didn't immediately say how and where that field is actually > > > used and had to dig that up. That's where the confusion came from. > > Okay, I've dropped them all from my tree. Several had Acks/Reviews, so > > hopefully those can get picked up for the DRM tree? > > I will pick those up to go through drm-misc-next. > > Going to ping maintainers once more when I'm not sure if stuff is correct or > not. Sounds great; thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook
