Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> writes: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 04:19:37PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> writes: >> >> > In preparation for FORTIFY_SOURCE performing compile-time and run-time >> > field bounds checking for memset(), avoid intentionally writing across >> > neighboring fields. >> > >> > Use memset_startat() so memset() doesn't get confused about writing >> > beyond the destination member that is intended to be the starting point >> > of zeroing through the end of the struct. Additionally split up a later >> > field-spanning memset() so that memset() can reason about the size. >> > >> > Cc: Kalle Valo <kv...@codeaurora.org> >> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> >> > Cc: Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> >> > Cc: ath...@lists.infradead.org >> > Cc: linux-wirel...@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >> >> To avoid conflicts I prefer taking this via my ath tree. > > The memset helpers are introduced as part of this series, so that makes > things more difficult. Do you want me to create a branch with the > helpers that you can merge?
Is this patch really worth the extra complexity? Why can't I apply this ath11k patch after the helpers have landed Linus' tree? That would be very simple. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
