Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] overflow: Add struct_size_t() helper

Tony Nguyen
2023-05-29T17:42:48Z

On 5/24/2023 7:17 AM, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 20:53:54 -0700
>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 14:18:13 -0700 Kees Cook wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.h
>>> index 37eadb3d27a8..41acfe26df1c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ddp.h
>>> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ struct ice_buf_hdr {
>>>
>>> #define ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(hd_sz, ent_sz) \
>>> ((ICE_PKG_BUF_SIZE - \
>>> - struct_size((struct ice_buf_hdr *)0, section_entry, 1) - (hd_sz)) / \
>>> + struct_size_t(struct ice_buf_hdr, section_entry, 1) - (hd_sz)) / \
>>> (ent_sz))
>>>
>>> /* ice package section IDs */
>>> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ struct ice_label_section {
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define ICE_MAX_LABELS_IN_BUF \
>>> - ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(struct_size((struct ice_label_section *)0, \
>>> + ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(struct_size_t(struct ice_label_section, \
>>> label, 1) - \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_label), \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_label))
>>> @@ -352,7 +352,7 @@ struct ice_boost_tcam_section {
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define ICE_MAX_BST_TCAMS_IN_BUF \
>>> - ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(struct_size((struct ice_boost_tcam_section *)0, \
>>> + ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(struct_size_t(struct ice_boost_tcam_section, \
>>> tcam, 1) - \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_boost_tcam_entry), \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_boost_tcam_entry))
>>> @@ -372,8 +372,7 @@ struct ice_marker_ptype_tcam_section {
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define ICE_MAX_MARKER_PTYPE_TCAMS_IN_BUF \
>>> - ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF( \
>>> - struct_size((struct ice_marker_ptype_tcam_section *)0, tcam, \
>>> + ICE_MAX_ENTRIES_IN_BUF(struct_size_t(struct ice_marker_ptype_tcam_section, tcam, \
>>> 1) - \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_marker_ptype_tcam_entry), \
>>> sizeof(struct ice_marker_ptype_tcam_entry))
>>
>> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
>>
>> but Intel ICE folks please speak up if this has a high chance of
>> conflicts, I think I've seen some ICE DDP patches flying around :(
>
> I haven't found anything that would conflict with this, esp. since it
> implies no functional changes.

Same here. I'm not seeing any conflicts with the patches I'm aware of.

Thanks,
Tony