Kees Cook kees@kernel.org 于2025年5月27日周二 11:36写道：

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 02:37:13PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

...

On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 07:06:54PM +0800, clingfei wrote:

...

As https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240304211940.it.083-kees@kernel.org/

I don't want to have to read a link to understand the commit message.

Does this change really affect anything in terms of "enforce the 0-sized destinations" rule? I don't think this is a destination. I think Kees enabled the checking he wanted. You should probably CC him since we're refering to his email.

FWIW, the above patch became commit 7ba59ac7da2a ("greybus: Avoid fake flexible array for response data").

...

...

pointed out, to enforce the 0-sized destinations, the remaining 0-sized destinations need to be handled. Thus the struct gb_control_get_manifest_response and struct gb_i2c_transfer_response are removed.

Here is a better commit message;

"We want to get rid of zero size arrays and use flexible arrays instead. However, in this case the struct is just one flexible array of u8 which adds no value. Just use a char pointer instead."

I would have ignored it, probably but actually the gb_control_get_manifest_response struct is not used so put that in a separate commit. That's a simpler commit to review.

"The gb_control_get_manifest_response struct is not used. Delete it."

The patch content itself looks mechanically correct. I think Dan's style suggestions would be good to see. Can you send a v2?

-Kees

...

...

Signed-off-by: clingfei clf700383@gmail.com

drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c | 9 ++++----- include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h | 9 --------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c

b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c

...

...

index 14f1ff6d448c..2857c2834206 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c @@ -144,15 +144,14 @@ gb_i2c_operation_create(struct gb_connection

*connection,

...

...

}

static void gb_i2c_decode_response(struct i2c_msg *msgs, u32

msg_count,

...

...

•                          struct gb_i2c_transfer_response
  

*response)

...

...

•                          u8 *data)
  

{ struct i2c_msg *msg = msgs;

• u8 *data; u32 i;

• if (!response)

• if (!data) return;

• data = response->data;

• for (i = 0; i < msg_count; i++) { if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD) { memcpy(msg->buf, data, msg->len);

@@ -188,7 +187,7 @@ static int gb_i2c_transfer_operation(struct

gb_i2c_device *gb_i2c_dev,

...

...

ret = gb_operation_request_send_sync(operation);
if (!ret) {

•       struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response;
  

•       u8 *response;
  
        response = operation->response->payload;
        gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, response);
  

I like when parameters are called the same thing on both sides. The name "response" adds no value. Instead get rid of that variable and pass operation->response->payload directly.

          gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count,
                                 operation->response->payload);

regards, dan carpenter

-- Kees Cook

Thanks for your review, I will send a PATCH v2. However, as Greg mentioned, I am not sure how to verify its correctness. Do you have any suggestions?