Re: [PATCH] fortify: Provide a memcpy trap door for sharp corners

[Saeed Mahameed]

On 11 May 09:24, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:53:01 -0700 Kees Cook wrote:
> > As we continue to narrow the scope of what the FORTIFY memcpy() will
> > accept and build alternative APIs that give the compiler appropriate
> > visibility into more complex memcpy scenarios, there is a need for
> > "unfortified" memcpy use in rare cases where combinations of compiler
> > behaviors, source code layout, etc, result in cases where the stricter
> > memcpy checks need to be bypassed until appropriate solutions can be
> > developed (i.e. fix compiler bugs, code refactoring, new API, etc). The
> > intention is for this to be used only if there's no other reasonable
> > solution, for its use to include a justification that can be used
> > to assess future solutions, and for it to be temporary.
> >
> > Example usage included, based on analysis and discussion from:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CANn89iLS_2cshtuXPyNUGDPaic=sJiYfvTb_wNLgWrZRyBxZ_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Saeed, ack for taking this in directly? Or do you prefer to take this
> plus Eric's last BIG TCP patch via your tree?

Please take both, I asked Eric a question on the BIG TCP patch, but I
won't block the series.

Thanks!