Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85964-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:56:09 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Vinod Koul
 <vkoul@kernel.org>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Jonathan
 Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@redhat.com>, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] net-device: Use new helpers from overflow.h in
 netdevice APIs
Message-ID: <20240228165609.06f5254a@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <202402281554.C1CEEF744@keescook>
References: <20240228204919.3680786-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
	<20240228204919.3680786-8-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
	<202402281341.AC67EB6E35@keescook>
	<20240228144148.5c227487@kernel.org>
	<202402281554.C1CEEF744@keescook>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 16:01:49 -0800 Kees Cook wrote:
> So, I found several cases where struct net_device is included in the
> middle of another structure, which makes my proposal more awkward. But I
> also don't understand why it's in the _middle_. Shouldn't it always be
> at the beginning (with priv stuff following it?)
> Quick search and examined manually: git grep 'struct net_device [a-z0-9_]*;'
> 
> struct rtw89_dev
> struct ath10k
> etc.

Ugh, yes, the (ab)use of NAPI.

> Some even have two included (?)

And some seem to be cargo-culted from out-of-tree code and are unused :S

> But I still like the idea -- Gustavo has been solving these cases with
> having two structs, e.g.:
> 
> struct net_device {
> 	...unchanged...
> };
> 
> struct net_device_alloc {
> 	struct net_device	dev;
> 	u32			priv_size;
> 	u8			priv_data[] __counted_by(priv_size) __aligned(NETDEV_ALIGN);
> };
> 
> And internals can use struct net_device_alloc...

That's... less pretty. I'd rather push the ugly into the questionable
users. Make them either allocate the netdev dynamically and store 
a pointer, or move the netdev to the end of the struct.

But yeah, that's a bit of a cleanup :(