Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Eliminate fake flexible arrays from the kernel ("variable length" one-element and zero-length arrays) #21

Closed
11 tasks done
kees opened this issue Nov 19, 2019 · 13 comments
Closed
11 tasks done
Assignees
Labels
compiler Needs compiler support [Idiom] fake flexible array [Linux] v6.12 Released in Linux kernel v6.12

Comments

@kees
Copy link

kees commented Nov 19, 2019

Dependent bugs:

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members” for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used.

In older C code, dynamically sized trailing elements were done by specifying
a one-element array at the end of a structure:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[1];
};

This led to fragile size calculations via sizeof() (which would need to remove
the size of the single trailing element to get a correct size of the “header”).
A GNU C extension was introduced to allow for zero-length arrays, to avoid
these kinds of size problems:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[0];
};

But this led to other problems, and didn’t solve some problems shared by both
styles, like not being able to detect when such an array is accidentally being
used not at the end of a structure (which could happen directly, or when
such a struct was in unions, structs of structs, etc).

C99 introduced “flexible array members”, which lacks a numeric size for the
array declaration entirely:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[];
};

This is the way the kernel expects dynamically sized trailing elements to be
declared. It allows the compiler to generate errors when the flexible array
does not occur last in the structure, which helps to prevent some kind of
undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced to the codebase.
It also allows the compiler to correctly analyze array sizes (via sizeof(),
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS). For instance, there is no
mechanism that warns us that the following application of the sizeof() operator
to a zero-length array always results in zero:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[0];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;

size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);

At the last line of code above, size turns out to be zero, when one might have
thought it represents the total size in bytes of the dynamic memory recently
allocated for the trailing array items. Here are a couple examples of this
issue: link 1, link 2. Instead, flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the
sizeof() operator may not be applied
, so any misuse of such operators will
be immediately noticed at build time.

With respect to one-element arrays, one has to be acutely aware that such
arrays occupy at least as much space as a single object of the type, hence they
contribute to the size of the enclosing structure
. This is prone to error every
time people want to calculate the total size of dynamic memory to allocate for
a structure containing an array of this kind as a member:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count - 1), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;

size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);

In the example above, we had to remember to calculate count - 1 when using the
struct_size() helper, otherwise we would have –unintentionally– allocated memory
for one too many items objects. The cleanest and least error-prone way to
implement this is through the use of a flexible array member, instead:

struct something {
        size_t count;
        struct foo items[];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;

size = sizeof(instance->items[0]) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
@kees kees added the [PATCH] Exists A patch exists to address the issue label Nov 21, 2019
@kees
Copy link
Author

kees commented Nov 21, 2019

@kees
Copy link
Author

kees commented Nov 21, 2019

Additionally, Documentation/process/deprecated.rst should be updated and a test added to scripts/checkpatch.pl.

@kees
Copy link
Author

kees commented Nov 21, 2019

/cc @GustavoARSilva

@kees
Copy link
Author

kees commented Dec 5, 2019

It would be nice if the compiler had a mode to warn about [0] and [1]-sized arrays.

@kees kees added the compiler Needs compiler support label Dec 5, 2019
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Lastly, make use of the struct_size() helper to safely calculate the
allocation size for instances of struct n_hdlc_buf and avoid any potential
type mistakes[4][5].

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
[5] commit 553d66c ("iommu/vt-d: Use struct_size() helper")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Lastly, make use of the struct_size() helper to safely calculate the
allocation size for instances of struct n_hdlc_buf and avoid any potential
type mistakes[4][5].

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
[5] commit 553d66c ("iommu/vt-d: Use struct_size() helper")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200121172138.GA3162@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Jan 25, 2020
Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
presence of a "variable length array":

struct something {
    int length;
    u8 data[1];
};

struct something *instance;

instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
instance->length = size;
memcpy(instance->data, source, size);

There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:

struct something {
        int stuff;
        u8 data[];
};

Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

[1] KSPP#21
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
tiwai pushed a commit to tiwai/sound that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211193910.GA4596@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
tiwai pushed a commit to tiwai/sound that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211194224.GA9383@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
tiwai pushed a commit to tiwai/sound that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211194403.GA10318@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
tiwai pushed a commit to tiwai/sound that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211200739.GA12948@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211211010.GA32239@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211210822.GA31368@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
…array member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211211722.GA1640@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211211219.GA673@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2020
…member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200212193700.GA29715@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
ruscur pushed a commit to ruscur/linux that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211234237.GA26971@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
morimoto pushed a commit to morimoto/linux that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Charles Keepax <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211200549.GA12072@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
FireBurn pushed a commit to FireBurn/linux that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200212193344.GA27929@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]>
jtlayton pushed a commit to ceph/ceph-client that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Feb 14, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

All these instances of code were found with the help of the following
Coccinelle script:

@@
identifier S, member, array;
type T1, T2;
@@

struct S {
  ...
  T1 member;
  T2 array[
- 0
  ];
};

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

NOTE: I'll carry this in my -next tree for the v5.6 merge window.

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
ruscur pushed a commit to ruscur/linux that referenced this issue Feb 14, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200211232148.GA20644@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
ruscur pushed a commit to ruscur/linux that referenced this issue Feb 14, 2020
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200212193523.GA28826@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 11, 2024
…y member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will
help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied.  As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Ic2c24ba6188807a846255c6015bdeb65aa6eb3c8
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Oberparleiter <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224501.GA14175@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Diaz1401 <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 403903906974649f74b9407cc0d1612373cf34fd)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 11, 2024
…rray member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will
help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied.  As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Iead40005910dc11d0cb8393af802caede31e12f5
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Oberparleiter <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224851.GA26467@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Diaz1401 <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit fe48b41c26d176cdb5fc59595db6f374200e71ae)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
Madara273 pushed a commit to Madara273/Electra_Kernel_OP9-pro that referenced this issue Nov 12, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sdm845 that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
Rsyd58 pushed a commit to Rsyd58/android_kernel_xiaomi_vince that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
…member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

Lastly, fix the following checkpatch warning:
WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned long' over 'unsigned long int' as the int is unnecessary
+	unsigned long int cpumask[];

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rsyd58 <[email protected]>
MNoxx74 pushed a commit to MNoxx74/android_kernel_realme_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Change-Id: I5d7b2cb29255e1f7adcfccbb07694633c27ea0c2
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
surajjs95 pushed a commit to amazonlinux/linux that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5601cda)
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sm8250 that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Icf28e3373702ffc198e66e665a798e4d7a582570
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 2d107f7)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2024
…y member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will
help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied.  As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: I6df2382156a2ae3d918774228f601458a61c1b82
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Peter Oberparleiter <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200213152241.GA877@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Diaz1401 <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit eaf180a5788e1420c82c9af6f7314bacc4e986f9)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2024
…y member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will
help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied.  As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Ic2c24ba6188807a846255c6015bdeb65aa6eb3c8
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Oberparleiter <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224501.GA14175@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Diaz1401 <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 403903906974649f74b9407cc0d1612373cf34fd)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
TogoFire pushed a commit to dev-sm8350/kernel_oneplus_sm8350 that referenced this issue Nov 22, 2024
…rray member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension
to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in
case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will
help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this
change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied.  As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Change-Id: Iead40005910dc11d0cb8393af802caede31e12f5
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Oberparleiter <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200302224851.GA26467@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Diaz1401 <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit fe48b41c26d176cdb5fc59595db6f374200e71ae)
Signed-off-by: TogoFire <[email protected]>
shaoyingxu pushed a commit to amazonlinux/linux that referenced this issue Nov 23, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5601cda)
Rsyd58 pushed a commit to Rsyd58/android_kernel_xiaomi_vince that referenced this issue Nov 25, 2024
…member

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

Lastly, fix the following checkpatch warning:
WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned long' over 'unsigned long int' as the int is unnecessary
+	unsigned long int cpumask[];

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Rsyd58 <[email protected]>
diphons pushed a commit to diphons/kernel_xiaomi_sdm845 that referenced this issue Nov 26, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Divyanshu-Modi <[email protected]>
Madara273 pushed a commit to Madara273/Electra_Kernel_OP9-pro that referenced this issue Nov 27, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <[email protected]>
mngyadam pushed a commit to amazonlinux/linux that referenced this issue Nov 27, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5601cda)
q2ven pushed a commit to amazonlinux/linux that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5601cda)
shaoyingxu pushed a commit to amazonlinux/linux that referenced this issue Nov 29, 2024
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 5601cda)
guckesh pushed a commit to exynos2100-dev/android_kernel_samsung_universal2100 that referenced this issue Nov 30, 2024
[ Upstream commit 08ca27d027c238ed3f9b9968d349cebde44d99a6 ]

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] KSPP/linux#21
[3] commit 7649773 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Stable-dep-of: ed779fe4c9b5 ("neighbour: fix unaligned access to pneigh_entry")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
compiler Needs compiler support [Idiom] fake flexible array [Linux] v6.12 Released in Linux kernel v6.12
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants