On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 08:52:36AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2021/11/19 8:39, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 08:17:14AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: > >> On 2021/11/19 3:38, Kees Cook wrote: > >>> In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time > >>> field bounds checking for memcpy(), memmove(), and memset(), avoid > >>> intentionally writing across neighboring fields. > >>> > >>> Use struct_group() in struct command_desc around members acmd and fill, > >>> so they can be referenced together. This will allow memset(), memcpy(), > >>> and sizeof() to more easily reason about sizes, improve readability, > >>> and avoid future warnings about writing beyond the end of acmd: > >>> > >>> In function 'fortify_memset_chk', > >>> inlined from 'sata_fsl_qc_prep' at drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c:534:3: > >>> ./include/linux/fortify-string.h:199:4: warning: call to '__write_overflow_field' declared with attribute warning: detected write beyond size of field (1st parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Wattribute-warning] > >>> 199 | __write_overflow_field(); > >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This lacks some context with regard to FORTIFY_SOURCE and struct_group(). Is > >> that already in 5.16 ? It sounds like it is not. Do you want a ack ? Or do you > >> want me to queue this up for 5.17 ? > > > > Ah yes, some details are here in the earlier "big" series cover letter > > here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20210818060533.3569517-1-keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > One of the requests from earlier review was to split it up for separate > > trees for the maintainers that wanted to take stuff via their trees > > directly. > > > > The new helpers are landed as of v5.16-rc1, so it can go either way, but > > given that the merge window is closed, I would expect this to be for > > v5.17. > > > > I am happy to to carry it in my fortify topic branch that I'm expecting > > to send for 5.17, but totally up to you. Some folks like to take these > > changes via their trees, others would rather not be bothered with it. :) > > OK. Since it looks like the compilation warning will trigger only when your big > series land in 5.17, I will queue this in for-5.17 (still need to create than > one). Is it ok with you ? Yup, that works for me. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook
