On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 03:26:58PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > From: Joel Granados <j.granados@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 09:15:31 +0200 > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:49:34PM -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > > From: Joel Granados via B4 Relay <devnull+j.granados.samsung.com@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:40:05 +0100 > > > > This commit comes at the tail end of a greater effort to remove the > > > > empty elements at the end of the ctl_table arrays (sentinels) which will > > > > reduce the overall build time size of the kernel and run time memory > > > > bloat by ~64 bytes per sentinel (further information Link : > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZO5Yx5JFogGi%2FcBo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/) > > > > > > > > When we remove the sentinel from ax25_param_table a buffer overflow > > > > shows its ugly head. The sentinel's data element used to be changed when > > > > CONFIG_AX25_DAMA_SLAVE was not defined. > > > > > > I think it's better to define the relation explicitly between the > > > enum and sysctl table by BUILD_BUG_ON() in ax25_register_dev_sysctl() > > > > > > BUILD_BUG_ON(AX25_MAX_VALUES != ARRAY_SIZE(ax25_param_table)); > > > > > > and guard AX25_VALUES_DS_TIMEOUT with #ifdef CONFIG_AX25_DAMA_SLAVE > > > as done for other enum. > > > > When I remove AX25_VALUES_DS_TIMEOUT from the un-guarded build it > > complains in net/ax25/ax25_ds_timer.c (ax25_ds_set_timer). Here is the > > report https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202404040301.qzKmVQGB-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/. > > > > How best to address this? Should we just guard the whole function and do > > nothing when not set? like this: > > It seems fine to me. > > ax25_ds_timeout() checks !ax25_dev->dama.slave_timeout, but it's > initialised by kzalloc() during dev setup, so it will be a noop. Just sent v3 with this change. -- Joel Granados
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
