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;
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 20:06:27 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        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,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        rds-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH net] rds: Prevent kernel-infoleak
 in rds_notify_queue_get()
Message-ID: <20200803230627.GQ24045@ziepe.ca>
References: <20200731053333.GB466103@kroah.com>
 <20200731140452.GE24045@ziepe.ca>
 <20200731142148.GA1718799@kroah.com>
 <20200731143604.GF24045@ziepe.ca>
 <20200731171924.GA2014207@kroah.com>
 <20200801053833.GK75549@unreal>
 <20200802221020.GN24045@ziepe.ca>
 <fb7ec4d4ed78e6ae7fa6c04abb24d1c00dc2b0f7.camel@perches.com>
 <20200802222843.GP24045@ziepe.ca>
 <60584f4c0303106b42463ddcfb108ec4a1f0b705.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <60584f4c0303106b42463ddcfb108ec4a1f0b705.camel@perches.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 03:45:40PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 19:28 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 03:23:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2020-08-02 at 19:10 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 08:38:33AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I'm using {} instead of {0} because of this GCC bug.
> > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
> > > > 
> > > > This is why the {} extension exists..
> > > 
> > > There is no guarantee that the gcc struct initialization {}
> > > extension also zeros padding.
> >
> > We just went over this. Yes there is, C11 requires it.
> 
> c11 is not c90.  The kernel uses c90.

The kernel already relies on a lot of C11/C99 features and
behaviors. For instance Linus just bumped the minimum compiler version
so that C11's _Generic is usable.

Why do you think this particular part of C11 shouldn't be relied on?

Jason