On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:48:02AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:35:29 -0400 Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > > Sure, but why are you doing this? And how do you know the change is > > > correct? > > > > > > There are 2 other instances where we allocate 1 entry or +1 entry. > > > Are they not all wrong? > > > > > > Also some walking code seems to walk <= divisor, divisor IIUC being > > > the array bound - 1? > > > > > > Jamal acked so changes are this is right, but I'd really like to > > > understand what's going on, and I shouldn't have to ask you all > > > these questions :S > > > > This is a "bug fix" given that the structure had no zero array > > construct as was implied by d61491a51f7e . I didnt want to call it out > > as a bug fix (for -net) because existing code was not harmful but > > allocated extra memory which this patch gives back. > > The other instances have a legit need for "flexible array". > > Based on the link provided it seems like the Fixes comes in because > someone reported compilation issues. But from the thread it seems > like the problem only appears when sizeof_struct() is modified. > In which case - you're right, Fixes and Reported-by tags should go.
Gustavo, can you please respin this with an updated commit log and adjusted tags for netdev to pick up? -- Kees Cook
