Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-167024-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 15:55:36 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@outlook.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/ring_buffer: Prefer struct_size over open coded
 arithmetic
Message-ID: <202405021552.5C000EA@keescook>
References: <AS8PR02MB72372AB065EA8340D960CCC48B1B2@AS8PR02MB7237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <20240430091504.GC40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <202405011317.AF41B94B@keescook>
 <20240502091837.GA30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240502091837.GA30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:18:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 01:21:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 07:40:58PM +0200, Erick Archer wrote:
> > > > This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
> > > > functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1][2].
> > > 
> > > So personally I detest struct_size() because I can never remember wtf it
> > > does, whereas the code it replaces is simple and straight forward :/
> > 
> > Sure, new APIs can involved a learning curve. If we can all handle
> > container_of(), we can deal with struct_size(). :)
> 
> containre_of() is actually *much* shorter than typing it all out. Which
> is a benefit.
> 
> struct_size() not so much. That's just obfuscation for obfuscation's
> sake.

It's really not -- it's making sure that the calculation is semantically
sane: all the right things are being used for the struct size calculation
and things can't "drift", if types change, flex array changes, etc. It's
both a code robustness improvement and a wrap-around stopping improvement.

-- 
Kees Cook