On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 07:26:44PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:18:46 -0800
> Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:40:44 +0200
> > > Andreas Christoforou <andreaschrist...@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! :)
If Andreas does a v3 anyway, please also consider to trim the subject
line to something like:
xfrm: remove VLA usage in __xfrm6_sort()
