Re: [PATCHv3] EDAC/mc: Use kzalloc_flex()

["Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com>]

On 3/31/26 06:18, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 04:25:26PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 3:32 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 02:26:10PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
>>>>> Oh, hypothetical what-if. Yeah, pls drop all that gunk from commit messages
>>>>> pls and simply concentrate on why the patch exists.
>>>> Not sure what you mean.
>>>
>>> I mean this: a commit message should simply state why a patch exists. Here's
>>> what I did with yours:
>>>
>>>      Convert struct mem_ctl_info to use flex array and use the new flex array
>>>      helpers to enable runtime bounds checking, including annotating the array
>>>      length member with __counted_by() for extra runtime analysis when requested.
>>>
>>>      Move counter assignment immediately after allocation as required by
>>>      __counted_by().

This is misinformation and should be phrased differently[1]

-Gustavo

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/37378f49-437f-438b-ad6c-d60480feb306@embeddedor.com/

>>>
>>>      Move memcpy() after the counter assignment so that it is initialized before
>>>      the first reference to the flex array, as the new attribute requires.
>> Looks great.
>>>
>>> The idea is that when one reads the commit message months, or even years from
>>> now - something we all have to do on a daily basis - it should have all the
>>> necessary information why the change was done.
>>>
>>> And nothing else. The emphasis being on the latter part. In this case, what
>>> this should have been and what some tools can do when lines are magically
>>> ordered doesn't really matter. The change must be worth to exist for itself.
>>> In this case, runtime bounds checking, which is something we all want.
> 
> Applied, thanks.
>