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] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com --- drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c index 838acbe84ca0..2b301b2aa107 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct gb_raw { struct raw_data { struct list_head entry; u32 len; - u8 data[0]; + u8 data[]; };
static struct class *raw_class;
On 2/11/20 3:12 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
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] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c index 838acbe84ca0..2b301b2aa107 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct gb_raw { struct raw_data { struct list_head entry; u32 len;
- u8 data[0];
- u8 data[];
}; static struct class *raw_class;
Does the kamlloc() call in receive_data() have any problems with the sizeof(*raw_data) passed as its argument?
I'm not entirely sure what sizeof(struct-with-flexible-array-member) produces.
-Alex
On 2/11/20 16:15, Alex Elder wrote:
On 2/11/20 3:12 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
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] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c index 838acbe84ca0..2b301b2aa107 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct gb_raw { struct raw_data { struct list_head entry; u32 len;
- u8 data[0];
- u8 data[];
}; static struct class *raw_class;
Does the kamlloc() call in receive_data() have any problems with the sizeof(*raw_data) passed as its argument?
Not in this case. It'd be different with a one-element array (u8 data[1]), though.
I'm not entirely sure what sizeof(struct-with-flexible-array-member) produces.
The same as sizeof(struct-with-zero-length-array):
"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]
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
-- Gustavo
On 2/11/20 4:47 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
On 2/11/20 16:15, Alex Elder wrote:
On 2/11/20 3:12 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
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] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c index 838acbe84ca0..2b301b2aa107 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct gb_raw { struct raw_data { struct list_head entry; u32 len;
- u8 data[0];
- u8 data[];
}; static struct class *raw_class;
Does the kamlloc() call in receive_data() have any problems with the sizeof(*raw_data) passed as its argument?
Not in this case. It'd be different with a one-element array (u8 data[1]), though.
I'm not entirely sure what sizeof(struct-with-flexible-array-member) produces.
The same as sizeof(struct-with-zero-length-array):
"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]
I saw that, but I wondered what the standard says (and whether Clang produces the same result).
I found this in a draft standard, and I guess we can assume it applies here:
"...the size of the structure is as if the flexible array member were omitted except that it may have more trailing padding than the omission would imply."
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder elder@linaro.org
-- Gustavo
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:12:19PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
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.
Looks like the scripts may need to be updated. You missed at least a couple of instances:
$ git grep '[0];' drivers/staging/greybus/ drivers/staging/greybus/audio_apbridgea.h: __u8 data[0]; ... drivers/staging/greybus/usb.c: u8 buf[0];
Would you mind replacing these as well so that we really do this in one patch per subsystem?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavo@embeddedor.com
drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c index 838acbe84ca0..2b301b2aa107 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/raw.c @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct gb_raw { struct raw_data { struct list_head entry; u32 len;
- u8 data[0];
- u8 data[];
}; static struct class *raw_class;
Thanks, Johan
-
Alex Elder -
Gustavo A. R. Silva -
Johan Hovold