On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:20:31AM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 03:35:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 04:00:39PM -0500, David Teigland wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 09:03:28PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 03:05:17PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 08, 2022 at 05:18:35PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > This is allocating 1 more byte than before, since the struct size > > > > > > didn't change. But this has always allocated too much space, due to > > > > > > the struct padding. For a "no binary changes" patch, the above "+ > > > > > > 1" needs to be left off. > > > > > > > > > > That's true. I agree that leaving "+ 1" would work and produce a > > > > > no-binary-changes patch due to the existing padding that the structure > > > > > has. OTOH, I thought that relying on that space could bite us in the > > > > > future if anyone tweaks the struct again...so my reaction was to > > > > > ensure > > > > > that the NUL-terminator space was always guaranteed to be there. > > > > > Hence, the change on c693 (objdump above). > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? Should we keep or leave the above > > > > > "+ 1" after the rationale above? > > > > > > > > I think it depends on what's expected from this allocation. Christine or > > > > David, can you speak to this? > > > > > > Hi, thanks for picking through that. Most likely the intention was to > > > allow up to 64 (DLM_LOCKSPACE_LEN) character names, and then use the > > > ls_name[1] for the terminating byte. I'd be happy to take the patch > > > > Should this just use: > > > > char ls_name[DLM_LOCKSPACE_LEN + 1]; > > > > instead, or is the byte savings worth keeping it dynamically sized? > > Yes, I think that's the best option. > Dave >
Thanks for the reply Dave; Thanks for the suggestion Kees; I'll send a new patch for it :) Paulo A.
