On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 11:13:28AM +0200, Len Baker wrote: > I think it is better to be defensive. IMHO I believe that if the > struct_size() helper could be used in this patch, it would be more > easy to ACK. But it is not possible due to the complex memory > layouts. I think it's better for code to be understandable. Your patch makes the code less readable in the name of "security", which is a poor justification. > However, there are a lot of code in the kernel that uses the > struct_size() helper for memory allocator arguments where we know > that it don't overflow. For example: Well, yes. That's because struct_size() actually makes code more readable as well as more secure. > As a last point I would like to know the opinion of Kees and > Gustavo since they are also working on this task. > > Kees and Gustavo, what do you think? You might want to check who was co-author on 610b15c50e86 before discarding my opinion.
