On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 08:27:33PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 09:45:18AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 08:47:34PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 01:12:36PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
... > > > > +#define __size_add4(addend1, addend2, addend3, addend4, addend5, ...) > > > > \ > > > > + __size_add(__size_add3(addend1, addend2, addend3, addend4), > > > > addend5) > > > > > > Is 4 the max seen in practice? > > > > In patch 2 there are 5! In cover letter I also mentioned a new user > > (there are actually three). And I remember seeing 3 somewhere else. > > I feel like we should allow size_mul() to work this way too, though I > don't find any users that would need it, so I guess just size_add()? For now, yes. The array_size() can be modified as we have already two of them, but I don't remember seeing more than 3, so it might look like an unneeded churn. > I'm fine for this to go via whatever tree is first to use it: > > Acked-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> Thanks! Johannes, are you okay to take a new version (I assume the wish is to have the balanced additions)? If so, I will prepare one. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
