Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/9] uprobe: Add support for session consumer

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:10:36AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 01:36:19PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > Yes, please use struct_size_t(). This is exactly what it was designed for.
> 
> Kees, please, just let up, not going to happen. I'm getting really fed
> up having to endlessly repeat what a piece of shite struct_size() is.

I mean, okay, but the wrapper in the patch is basically the same thing.
*shrug*

> Put your time and effort into doing a proper language extension so we
> can go and delete all that __builtin_*_overflow() based garbage.

We are! That's in the future. Today, we have a saturating wrapper that
provides type checking for the calculation's operands, and is in common
use through-out the kernel. These are all things that the open-coded
does not provide, so I continue to see it as an improvement over what
else is available right now.

I got asked for my opinion about whether to use struct_size() or not. In
my opinion, this is a good place for it. I know you don't agree with me,
but that wasn't the question. :)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook