Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 04:19:37PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time >> > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across >> > neighboring fields. >> > >> > Use memset_startat() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing >> > beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point >> > of zeroing through the end of the struct. Additionally split up a later >> > field-spanning memset() so that memset() can reason about the size. >> > >> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: ath11k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> To avoid conflicts I prefer taking this via my ath tree. > > The memset helpers are introduced as part of this series, so that makes > things more difficult. Do you want me to create a branch with the > helpers that you can merge? Is this patch really worth the extra complexity? Why can't I apply this ath11k patch after the helpers have landed Linus' tree? That would be very simple. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
