Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 18:04:07 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcachefs: Refactor bkey_i to use a flexible array
Message-ID: <20231018220407.b5dvm2ehibcqvhzq@moria.home.lan>
References: <20231010235609.work.594-kees@kernel.org>
 <ZSkpU0vdrCTfTxuZ@bfoster>
 <202310131637.D0C66BFBA@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202310131637.D0C66BFBA@keescook>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 04:44:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 07:26:11AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Hi Kees,
> > 
> > I'm curious if this is something that could be buried in bch_val given
> > it's already kind of a fake structure..? If not, my only nitty comment
> 
> I was thinking it would be best to keep the flexible array has "high" in
> the struct as possible, as in the future more refactoring will be needed
> to avoid having flex arrays overlap with other members in composite
> structures. So instead of pushing into bch_val, I left it at the highest
> level possible, bch_i, as that's the struct being used by the memcpy().

I agree with Brian here - I'd like this buried in bch_val, if possible.

I also went with unsafe_memcpy() for now - that's now in my for-next
tree. I'm not seeing any advantage of DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY over that -
perhaps later if we could use __counted_by that would make more sense.