Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > In preparation for reducing the use of ksize(), explicitly track the > size of scan_cmd allocations. This also allows for noticing if the scan > size changes unexpectedly. Note that using ksize() was already incorrect > here, in the sense that ksize() would not match the actual allocation > size, which would trigger future run-time allocation bounds checking. > (In other words, memset() may know how large scan_cmd was allocated for, > but ksize() will return the upper bounds of the actually allocated memory, > causing a run-time warning about an overflow.) > > Cc: Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Via which tree is this iwlwifi patch going? Normally via wireless-next or something else? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
