On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:46:31PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > 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> > > > > What's the plan for this patch? I would like to take this via my ath > > tree to avoid conflicts. > > Actually this has been already applied: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/commit/?h=ath-next&id=d5549e9a6b86 > > Why are you submitting the same patch twice? These are all part of a topic branch, and the cover letter mentioned that a set of them have already been taken but haven't appeared in -next (which was delayed). Sorry for the confusion! -- Kees Cook
