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

[Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>]

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@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> 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@canb.auug.org.au/
>>
>> 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
>>