Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Dec 2022 17:29:15 +1300
From:   Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ilpo =?utf-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Haowen Bai <baihaowen@meizu.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with
 flex-array member
Message-ID: <Y5qim07QaqyvAtRX@mail.google.com>
References: <Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com>
 <202212141124.736E3DE2A8@keescook>
 <Y5otilaHc6HBPCAF@mail.google.com>
 <CAHp75VdHU3g_t8u-hr1C=mttvEq-jWmMuCwaQqXToP-kH3xstQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202212141347.9AD66DEBC8@keescook>
 <CAHp75VdqUMs1uz8zeyDi6rJKayFt6UMrm0A=-Hp8tQpCUSGujQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdqUMs1uz8zeyDi6rJKayFt6UMrm0A=-Hp8tQpCUSGujQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 12:06:46AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:39:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Yes, and Try to make it work with __packed. As I said, the problem is
> > > that the code is relying on something which is architecture dependent
> > > strictly speaking. And hence I disagree with Kees that v2 is okay to
> > > go.
> >
> > I meant that v2 is functionally identical to the existing code.
> 
> Ah, sorry for misunderstanding.
> 

I agree with using __packed attribute to remove the extra padding (and
for the reasons you mentioned before). That would reduce the sizeof(RXBUF)
from 8 to 5 (which is good) but that is still 1 byte "too much".

Piggying back on a suggestion Kees gave before:

-       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;
+       info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size;

That way RXBUF->data will point to the first byte of the frame_size 
(MGSLPC_INFO->max_frame_size) which is what is actually needed.

> > > The full change should be something like
> > >
> > > check_add(sizeof(), max_frame_size)
> > > kcalloc(8, size)
> >
> > Right -- this would fix the existing mistakes in size calculation (and
> > is certainly better).
> 
> Glad to hear that we are on the same page.
> 

That makes sense to me.

thanks!

- Paulo A.