Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 10:46:14 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Remove VLA usage On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 11:07:08AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:01:55AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote: > > > There's an ongoing effort to remove VLAs from the kernel to eventually > > > turn on -Wvla. The vla in reg_write_range is based on the length of data > > > passed. The one use of a non-constant size for this range is bounded by > > > the size buffer passed to hdmi_infoframe_pack which is a fixed size. > > > Switch to this upper bound. > > > > > >  https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/7/621 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> > > > > Same question for this patch: who's best to take this? > > I had decided that I'm not taking any tda998x stuff until we get the > CEC support merged upstream, as that has been hanging around for ages. > Progress has been slow on that, but it finally got to the point where > everyone was happy with it, and I sent a pull request to David Airlie > on April 24th for it. > > Unfortunately, that pull request has not been actioned to date. I've > sent a chaser, and last night, I checked with David Airlie on IRC. > It seems David is not aware of my pull request. David says he'll look > into this on Monday. > > Until David does take it, I can't add anything further to my git tree > for tda998x development, as that would change what was sent to David > back in April. > > The alternative would be for drm-misc to take it - I don't think it > will conflict with anything I've already asked David to take, so that > should be a safe route for _this_ patch. Sounds reasonable, applied to drm-misc-next for 4.19 just to make sure it won't get lost. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.