From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: ipv6: xfrm6_state: remove VLA usage
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 19:26:44 +0100
Message-ID: <20180310192644.3fcbb69d@epycfail>
References: <1520667645-21975-1-git-send-email-andreaschristofo@gmail.com>
        <20180310094327.685d181d@epycfail>
        <CAGXu5jKwWRzK8EJOo2zraxi9ghQ7an5d4yr8ktGa+ijWX_aJZA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andreas Christoforou <andreaschristofo@gmail.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKwWRzK8EJOo2zraxi9ghQ7an5d4yr8ktGa+ijWX_aJZA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:18:46 -0800
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:40:44 +0200
> > Andreas Christoforou <andreaschristofo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> index b15075a..270a53a 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_state.c
> >> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ __xfrm6_sort(void **dst, void **src, int n, int (*cmp)(void *p), int maxclass)
> >>  {
> >>       int i;
> >>       int class[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
> >> -     int count[maxclass];
> >> +     int count[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
> >>
> >>       memset(count, 0, sizeof(count));  
> >
> > Can you perhaps initialize 'count' instead of calling memset(), now?  
> 
> Do you mean:
> 
> int count[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH] = { };
> 
> instead of the memset()?

Yep.

> I thought the compiler would resolve these both to the same thing?

Yes, for all practical purposes. With gcc 7.3.0 for x86_64, starting
from -O1, it's exactly the same. With e.g. gcc 4.4.7, even with -O3,
they can be a bit different depending on context.

> The former looks better though! :)

Yep! :)

-- 
Stefano