Re: [PATCH 08/17] ath11k: Use memset_startat() for clearing queue descriptors

Kalle Valo [off-list ref] writes:

Kees Cook [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: ath11k@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>

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?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:46:31PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:

Kalle Valo [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Kees Cook [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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 <redacted>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: ath11k@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>

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