From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Haoyu Li <lihaoyu499@gmail.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: sme: Initialize n_channels before accessing channels in cfg80211_conn_scan
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 16:25:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fa9ef37903db0f81654451104b1407f60f85ce5d.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241203152049.348806-1-lihaoyu499@gmail.com>
On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 23:20 +0800, Haoyu Li wrote:
> With the new __counted_by annocation in cfg80211_scan_request struct,
> the "n_channels" struct member must be set before accessing the
> "channels" array. Failing to do so will trigger a runtime warning
> when enabling CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
>
> Fixes: e3eac9f32ec0 ("wifi: cfg80211: Annotate struct cfg80211_scan_request with __counted_by")
>
> Signed-off-by: Haoyu Li <lihaoyu499@gmail.com>
nit: there should be no newline between these
My tolerance for this is going WAY down, it seems it's all just busy-
work, and then everyone complains and I need to handle "urgent fixes"
because of it etc.
I'm having severe second thoughts about ever having accepted the
__counted_by annotations, I think we should just revert it. Experiment
failed, we found ... that the code is fine but constantly needs changes
to make the checkers happy.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-03 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-03 15:20 [PATCH] net: wireless: sme: Initialize n_channels before accessing channels in cfg80211_conn_scan Haoyu Li
2024-12-03 15:25 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2024-12-03 16:20 ` Gustavo A. R. Silva
2024-12-03 16:45 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fa9ef37903db0f81654451104b1407f60f85ce5d.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=lihaoyu499@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox