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: <20210913131113.390368911@linuxfoundation.org> <20210913131114.028340332@linuxfoundation.org>
 <CA+G9fYtdPnwf+fi4Oyxng65pWjW9ujZ7dd2Z-EEEHyJimNHN6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YT+RKemKfg6GFq0S@kroah.com> <CAKwvOdmOAKTkgFK4Oke1SFGR_NxNqXe-buj1uyDgwZ4JdnP2Vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdmCS5Q7AzUL5nziYVU7RrtRjoE9JjOXfVBWagO1Bzbsew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+icZUVuRaMs=bx775gDF88_xzy8LFkBA5xaK21hFDeYvgo12A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdmN3nQe8aL=jUwi0nGXzYQGic=NA2o40Q=yeHeafSsS3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=whwREzjT7=OSi5=qqOkQsvMkCOYVhyKQ5t8Rdq4bBEzuw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whwREzjT7=OSi5=qqOkQsvMkCOYVhyKQ5t8Rdq4bBEzuw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:16:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkf3B41RRe8FDkw1H-0hBt1_PhZtZxBZ5pj0pyh7vDLmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.14 018/334] nbd: add the check to prevent overflow in __nbd_ioctl()
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:10 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:02 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ha! I pulled+rebased and this code disappeared...I thought I had
> > rebased on the wrong branch or committed work to master accidentally.
> > Patch to stable-only inbound.
>
> Side note: for stable, can you look into using _Generic() instead of
> __builtin_choose_expression() with typeof, or some
> __builtin_types_compatible_p() magic?
>
> Yes, yes, we use __builtin_choose_expression() elsewhere, but we've
> started using _Generic(), and it's really the more natural model - in
> addition to being the standard C one.
>
> Of course, there may be some reason why _Generic() doesn't work, but
> it _is_ the natural fit for any "for type X, do Y" kind of thing.
>
> No?

Man, c'mon, I just got the __builtin_choose_expression() working! It's
not...too bad...ish. (Besides, I'd actually have to learn how to use
_Generic...I've never quite gotten anything I've written trying to use
it to actually compile).

Do we have access to _Generic in GCC 4.9?
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers