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:   Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:13:25 +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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with
 flex-array member
Message-ID: <Y5uN9Rr3v1uWH765@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>
 <Y5qim07QaqyvAtRX@mail.google.com>
 <CAHp75VcSnRPfmk9gAgz+hb7VYtL5buzDi_1e53u8b8+PrtxAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcSnRPfmk9gAgz+hb7VYtL5buzDi_1e53u8b8+PrtxAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:29 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
> <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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".
> 
> What I meant with the above is that the code has to work properly with
> or without __packed. It's just to show you that this code has flaws if
> it relies on the padding.
> 

Right - that would work just as well. I will work on v3 with the
suggestions given by you (sizing calculation amendments using overflow.h
macros) and kees (adding the notes regarding the padding) then.

- Paulo A.