Am 02.10.23 um 20:22 schrieb Kees Cook:
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!
I wasn't 100% sure for the VC4 patch, but pushed the whole set to
drm-misc-next anyway.
This also means that the patches are now auto merged into the drm-tip
integration branch and should any build or unit test go boom we should
notice immediately and can revert it pretty easily.
Thanks,
Christian.
-Kees
