Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200730192026.110246-1-yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>
 <20200731045301.GI75549@unreal> <20200731053306.GA466103@kroah.com>
 <20200731053333.GB466103@kroah.com> <CAHp75Vdr2HC_ogNhBCxxGut9=Z6pQMFiA0w-268OQv+5unYOTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200731070030.GJ75549@unreal>
In-Reply-To: <20200731070030.GJ75549@unreal>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 10:05:04 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfZj4L6PJBbWi6wwMF2nucaxGjRLVvi-fTPSWxWvFE0TA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] rds: Prevent kernel-infoleak
 in rds_notify_queue_get()
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        "rds-devel@oss.oracle.com" <rds-devel@oss.oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Sakari, JFYI. I remember during some reviews we have a discussion
about {0} vs {} and surprisingly they are not an equivalent.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:00 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 09:29:27AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Friday, July 31, 2020, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:33:06AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 07:53:01AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 03:20:26PM -0400, Peilin Ye wrote:

...

> > > > > Of course, this is the difference between "{ 0 }" and "{}"
> > > initializations.
> > > >
> > > > Really?  Neither will handle structures with holes in it, try it and
> > > > see.
> >
> >
> > {} is a GCC extension, but I never thought it works differently.
>
> Yes, this is GCC extension and kernel relies on them very heavily.

I guess simple people who contribute to the kernel just haven't
realized (yet) that it's an extension and that's why we have plenty of
{} and {0} in the kernel.

> > > And if true, where in the C spec does it say that?


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko