On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:35:37AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2024-05-17 at 21:45 +0100, Simon Horman wrote: > > > > FWWIW, it seems unfortunate to me that the __counted_by field (n_channels) > > is set some distance away from the allocation of the flex-array (channels) > > whose bounds it checks. It seems it would be pretty easy for a bug in the > > code being updated here to result in an overrun. > > > > In a way, this is a more general problem, this allocates the max we know > we might need, but then filter it down. It'd have to iterate twice to > actually allocate the "correct" size, but then you could still have bugs > by having different filter conditions in the two loops ... Yes, I agree this problem is more general than this patch or the code it updates. > Don't see any good solutions to this kind of code? I was hoping you might :)
