Re: [PATCH v2] overflow: Change DEFINE_FLEX to take __counted_by member

[Tony Nguyen]

On 3/11/2024 2:28 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 12:32:45PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 08:20:18PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 03:51:36PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > The norm should be flexible array structures with __counted_by
> > > > annotations, so DEFINE_FLEX() is updated to expect that. Rename
> > > > the non-annotated version to DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(), and update the
> > > > few existing users.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Hi Kees,
> > >
> > > I'm unclear what this is based on, as it doesn't appear to apply
> > > cleanly to net-next or the dev-queue branch of the iwl-next tree.
> > > But I manually applied it to the latter and ran some checks.
> >
> > It was based on v6.8-rc2, but it no longer applies cleanly to iwl-next:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20240307162958.02ec485c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Is this something iwl-next can take for the v6.9 merge window? I can
> > send a rebased patch if that helps?
>
> Thanks Kees,
>
> I think that would help in the sense that from my POV it would
> be more in fitting with the usual workflow for netdev patches.
>
> But if the iwl maintainers think otherwise then I have no objections.

I can take this through iwl-next. A rebase would be great and if you 
mark it for iwl-next ('PATCH iwl-next') so that everyone is clear on 
target tree. Just to note since net-next is now closed, it would be 
going to 6.10.

Thanks,
Tony

> > > > @@ -396,9 +396,9 @@ static inline size_t __must_check size_sub(size_t minuend, size_t subtrahend)
> > > >    * @name: Name for a variable to define.
> > > >    * @member: Name of the array member.
> > > >    * @count: Number of elements in the array; must be compile-time const.
> > > > - * @initializer: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
> > > > + * @initializer...: initializer expression (could be empty for no init).
> > >
> > > Curiously kernel-doc --none seems happier without the line above changed.
> >
> > I've fixed this up too:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/202403071124.36DC2B617A@keescook/
> >
> > --
> > Kees Cook