search for: vmw_surface_dirti

Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by for struct vmw_surface_dirty. [1]

Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by for struct vmw_surface_dirty. [1]

Prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by for struct vmw_surface_dirty. [1]

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

Hi, This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). As found with Coccinelle[1], add

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for

Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible >> array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses >> bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS

Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible >> array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses >> bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS

Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible >> array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses >> bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >> implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > >> array

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: > > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > >> This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > >

Am 02.10.23 um 18:53 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig >> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: >>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> This is a batch of patches

Am 02.10.23 um 18:53 schrieb Kees Cook: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:06:19AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 5:20?AM Christian K?nig >> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 29.09.23 um 21:33 schrieb Kees Cook: >>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >>>>> This is a batch of patches