forked from torvalds/linux
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
Replace one-element arrays with flexible-array members #79
Labels
Comments
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 14, 2020
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”[1] for these
cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should
no longer be used[2].
For this particular case, it is important to notice that the cachelines
change from 7 to 6 after the flexible-array conversion:
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[1]; /* 384 8 */
/* size: 392, cachelines: 7, members: 10 */
/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
};
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[]; /* 384 0 */
/* size: 384, cachelines: 6, members: 10 */
};
Lastly, remove unnecessary parentheses in fifo_sz() and fix the following
checkpatch.pl warning for the whole fifo structure:
WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] KSPP#79
Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/kernel-ci/hpilo-20200714.md
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 14, 2020
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”[1] for these cases or, as in this particular case, replace the one-element array with a simple value type u8 reserved once this is just a placeholder for alignment. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member [2] KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 14, 2020
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”[1] for these
cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should
no longer be used[2].
For this particular case, it is important to notice that the cachelines
change from 7 to 6 after the flexible-array conversion:
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[1]; /* 384 8 */
/* size: 392, cachelines: 7, members: 10 */
/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
};
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[]; /* 384 0 */
/* size: 384, cachelines: 6, members: 10 */
};
Lastly, remove unnecessary parentheses in fifo_sz() and fix the following
checkpatch.pl warning for the whole fifo structure:
WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] KSPP#79
Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/kernel-ci/hpilo-20200714.md
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200714154449.GA26153@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 14, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with a simple value type u8 reserved, once this is just a placeholder for alignment. Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. [1] KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 15, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u8 reserved'[2], once this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/wil6210-20200715.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 16, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with simple value types 'char reserved_char' and 'compat_int_t reserved'[2], once it seems these are just placeholders for alignment. Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. Lastly, fix the checkpatch.pl warnings below: ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible + char reserved_char;$ WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line + char reserved_char;$ ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible + compat_int_t reserved;$ WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line + compat_int_t reserved;$ [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/tty-20200716.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 17, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u8 reserved'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/skylake-20200717.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
ogabbay
pushed a commit
to HabanaAI/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2020
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”[1] for these
cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should
no longer be used[2].
For this particular case, it is important to notice that the cachelines
change from 7 to 6 after the flexible-array conversion:
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[1]; /* 384 8 */
/* size: 392, cachelines: 7, members: 10 */
/* last cacheline: 8 bytes */
};
$ pahole -C 'fifo' drivers/misc/hpilo.o
struct fifo {
u64 nrents; /* 0 8 */
u64 imask; /* 8 8 */
u64 merge; /* 16 8 */
u64 reset; /* 24 8 */
u8 pad_0[96]; /* 32 96 */
/* --- cacheline 2 boundary (128 bytes) --- */
u64 head; /* 128 8 */
u8 pad_1[120]; /* 136 120 */
/* --- cacheline 4 boundary (256 bytes) --- */
u64 tail; /* 256 8 */
u8 pad_2[120]; /* 264 120 */
/* --- cacheline 6 boundary (384 bytes) --- */
u64 fifobar[]; /* 384 0 */
/* size: 384, cachelines: 6, members: 10 */
};
Lastly, remove unnecessary parentheses in fifo_sz() and fix the following
checkpatch.pl warning for the whole fifo structure:
WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] KSPP#79
Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/kernel-ci/hpilo-20200714.md
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200714154449.GA26153@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u8 reserved'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/skylake-20200717.md Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200717215500.GA13910@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u32 reserved2'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/tg3-20200718.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u8 rsvd'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/bfi-20200718.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with simple value types 'char reserved_char' and 'compat_int_t reserved'[2], once it seems these are just placeholders for alignment. Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. Lastly, fix the checkpatch.pl warnings below: ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible + char reserved_char;$ WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line + char reserved_char;$ ERROR: code indent should use tabs where possible + compat_int_t reserved;$ WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line + compat_int_t reserved;$ [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/tty-20200716.md Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2020
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”[1] for these cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. Also, make use of the array_size() helper instead of the open-coded version in memcpy(). These sorts of multiplication factors need to be wrapped in array_size(). And while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member [2] KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 22, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type '__le32 reserved1'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/qed_hsi-20200718.md Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 23, 2020
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”[1] for these cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. Also, make use of the array_size() helper instead of the open-coded version in memcpy(). These sorts of multiplication factors need to be wrapped in array_size(). And while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member [2] KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200722181534.GA31357@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 23, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with a simple value type u8 reserved, once this is just a placeholder for alignment. Also, while there, use the preferred form for passing a size of a struct. The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed as argument is not. [1] KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200714214516.GA1040@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 23, 2020
Replace the single element arrays with a simple value type u8 reserved, even thought is is not used for dynamically sized trailing elements it confuses the effort of replacing one-element arrays with flexible arrays for that purpose. Link: KSPP#79 Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 23, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with simple value types 'char reserved_char' and 'compat_int_t reserved'[2], once it seems these are just placeholders for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/tty-20200716.md Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
ogabbay
pushed a commit
to HabanaAI/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 24, 2020
Replace the single element arrays with a simple value type u8 reserved, even thought is is not used for dynamically sized trailing elements it confuses the effort of replacing one-element arrays with flexible arrays for that purpose. Link: KSPP#79 Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200723145927.882743-7-tomas.winkler@intel.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
ruscur
pushed a commit
to ruscur/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jul 30, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element arrays with simple value types 'char reserved_char' and 'compat_int_t reserved'[2], once it seems these are just placeholders for alignment. [1] KSPP#79 [2] KSPP#86 Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/tty-20200716.md Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/f49bf0e27eaac396c96d21392c8c284f9f5ef52a.1595543280.git.gustavoars@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
kitakar5525
pushed a commit
to kitakar5525/linux-kernel
that referenced
this issue
Sep 16, 2020
One-element arrays are being deprecated[1]. Replace the one-element array with a simple value type 'u8 reserved'[2], once it seems this is just a placeholder for alignment. [1] KSPP/linux#79 [2] KSPP/linux#86 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@linux.intel.com> Link: https://github.com/GustavoARSilva/linux-hardening/blob/master/cii/0-day/skylake-20200717.md Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200717215500.GA13910@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> (cherry picked from commit 23f8d96) BUG=b:162008784 TEST=Test audio on volteer. Signed-off-by: Mike Mason <michael.w.mason@intel.corp-partner.google.com>
sudipm-mukherjee
pushed a commit
to sudipm-mukherjee/linux-test
that referenced
this issue
Feb 2, 2021
… icmsg_negotiate 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”[1] for these cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in struct icmsg_negotiate, instead of a one-element array. Also, this helps the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and fix the following warnings: drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c:315:23: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘struct ic_version[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c:316:23: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘struct ic_version[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays Link: KSPP/linux#79 Link: KSPP/linux#109 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210201174334.GA171933@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 2, 2021
…t _MPI2_CONFIG_PAGE_IO_UNIT_3
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct _MPI2_CONFIG_PAGE_IO_UNIT_3, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the
allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warning:
drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_ctl.c:3193:63: warning: array subscript 24
is above array bounds of ‘U16[1]’ {aka ‘short unsigned int[1]’}
[-Warray-bounds]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP#79
Link: KSPP#109
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 3, 2021
…t _MPI2_CONFIG_PAGE_IO_UNIT_3
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct _MPI2_CONFIG_PAGE_IO_UNIT_3, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the
allocation.
Also, this helps the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and fix the
following warnings:
drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_ctl.c:3193:63: warning: array subscript 24
is above array bounds of ‘U16[1]’ {aka ‘short unsigned int[1]’}
[-Warray-bounds]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP#79
Link: KSPP#109
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
ColinIanKing
pushed a commit
to ColinIanKing/linux-next
that referenced
this issue
Feb 8, 2021
… icmsg_negotiate 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”[1] for these cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in struct icmsg_negotiate, instead of a one-element array. Also, this helps the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and fix the following warnings: drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c:315:23: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘struct ic_version[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c:316:23: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘struct ic_version[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays Link: KSPP/linux#79 Link: KSPP/linux#109 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210201174334.GA171933@embeddedor Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
fengguang
pushed a commit
to 0day-ci/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 10, 2021
…ISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of a one-element array, and use
the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2448:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2449:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2450:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2451:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2452:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:5570:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP#79
Link: KSPP#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023be58.sk66L%2FV4vuSJI5mI%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 16, 2023
…ISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of a one-element array, and use
the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2448:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2449:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2450:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2451:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2452:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:5570:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023be58.sk66L%2FV4vuSJI5mI%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 16, 2023
…ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Table
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Use flexible-array member in struct _ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Table,
instead of one-element array.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/hwmgr/vega10_hwmgr.c: In function ‘vega10_get_pp_table_entry_callback_func’:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/hwmgr/vega10_hwmgr.c:3113:30: warning: array subscript 4 is above array bounds of ‘ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Record[1]’ {aka ‘struct _ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Record[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
3113 | gfxclk_dep_table->entries[4].ulClk;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023ff3d.WY3sSCkGRQPdPlVo%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 16, 2023
…ray member in struct NISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Use flexible-array member in struct NISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of
one-element array.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds by
fixing the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c: In function ‘ni_convert_power_state_to_smc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2521:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2521 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.MaxPS =
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2523:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2523 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.NearTDPDec = NISLANDS_DPM2_NEAR_TDP_DEC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2524:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2524 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.AboveSafeInc = NISLANDS_DPM2_ABOVE_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2525:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2525 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.BelowSafeInc = NISLANDS_DPM2_BELOW_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2526:35: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2526 | smc_state->levels[i].stateFlags |=
| ^~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2526:35: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2526 | smc_state->levels[i].stateFlags |=
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
2527 | ((i != (state->performance_level_count - 1)) && power_boost_limit) ?
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2528 | PPSMC_STATEFLAG_POWERBOOST : 0;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2442:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2442 | smc_state->levels[i + 1].aT = cpu_to_be32(a_t);
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023ed54.BfIY+9Uz81I6nq19%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 16, 2023
…truct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of a one-element array, and use
the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds by
fixing the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c: In function ‘si_convert_power_state_to_smc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2350:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2350 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.MaxPS = (u8)((SISLANDS_DPM2_MAX_PULSE_SKIP * (max_sclk - min_sclk)) / max_sclk);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2351:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2351 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.NearTDPDec = SISLANDS_DPM2_NEAR_TDP_DEC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2352:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2352 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.AboveSafeInc = SISLANDS_DPM2_ABOVE_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2353:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2353 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.BelowSafeInc = SISLANDS_DPM2_BELOW_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2354:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2354 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.PwrEfficiencyRatio = cpu_to_be16(pwr_efficiency_ratio);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:5105:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
5105 | smc_state->levels[i + 1].aT = cpu_to_be32(a_t);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/603f9a8f.aDLrpMFzzSApzVYQ%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 27, 2023
…ISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of a one-element array, and use
the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2448:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2449:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2450:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2451:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:2452:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/si_dpm.c:5570:20: warning: array
subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’
{aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023be58.sk66L%2FV4vuSJI5mI%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 27, 2023
…ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Table
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Use flexible-array member in struct _ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Table,
instead of one-element array.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/hwmgr/vega10_hwmgr.c: In function ‘vega10_get_pp_table_entry_callback_func’:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/powerplay/hwmgr/vega10_hwmgr.c:3113:30: warning: array subscript 4 is above array bounds of ‘ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Record[1]’ {aka ‘struct _ATOM_Vega10_GFXCLK_Dependency_Record[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
3113 | gfxclk_dep_table->entries[4].ulClk;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023ff3d.WY3sSCkGRQPdPlVo%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 27, 2023
…ray member in struct NISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Use flexible-array member in struct NISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of
one-element array.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds by
fixing the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c: In function ‘ni_convert_power_state_to_smc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2521:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2521 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.MaxPS =
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2523:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2523 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.NearTDPDec = NISLANDS_DPM2_NEAR_TDP_DEC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2524:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2524 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.AboveSafeInc = NISLANDS_DPM2_ABOVE_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2525:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2525 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.BelowSafeInc = NISLANDS_DPM2_BELOW_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2526:35: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2526 | smc_state->levels[i].stateFlags |=
| ^~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2526:35: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2526 | smc_state->levels[i].stateFlags |=
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
2527 | ((i != (state->performance_level_count - 1)) && power_boost_limit) ?
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2528 | PPSMC_STATEFLAG_POWERBOOST : 0;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c:2442:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct NISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2442 | smc_state->levels[i + 1].aT = cpu_to_be32(a_t);
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6023ed54.BfIY+9Uz81I6nq19%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
dumbbell
pushed a commit
to dumbbell/drm-kmod
that referenced
this issue
Jan 27, 2023
…truct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct SISLANDS_SMC_SWSTATE, instead of a one-element array, and use
the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds by
fixing the following warnings:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c: In function ‘si_convert_power_state_to_smc’:
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2350:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2350 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.MaxPS = (u8)((SISLANDS_DPM2_MAX_PULSE_SKIP * (max_sclk - min_sclk)) / max_sclk);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2351:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2351 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.NearTDPDec = SISLANDS_DPM2_NEAR_TDP_DEC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2352:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2352 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.AboveSafeInc = SISLANDS_DPM2_ABOVE_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2353:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2353 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.BelowSafeInc = SISLANDS_DPM2_BELOW_SAFE_INC;
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:2354:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
2354 | smc_state->levels[i].dpm2.PwrEfficiencyRatio = cpu_to_be16(pwr_efficiency_ratio);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/si_dpm.c:5105:20: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’ {aka ‘struct SISLANDS_SMC_HW_PERFORMANCE_LEVEL[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
5105 | smc_state->levels[i + 1].aT = cpu_to_be32(a_t);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/603f9a8f.aDLrpMFzzSApzVYQ%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jan 28, 2023
Using a one-element array as a fake flexible array is deprecated. Replace the one-element flexible arrays in rtas-types.h with C99 standard flexible array members instead. This helps us move towards enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 in future. Found using scripts/coccinelle/misc/flexible_array.cocci. Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Link: KSPP#21 Link: KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>
solbjorn
pushed a commit
to solbjorn/linux
that referenced
this issue
Jan 28, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
flexible-array member in struct gvt_firmware_header and refactor the
rest of the code accordingly.
Additionally, previous implementation was allocating 8 bytes more than
required to represent firmware_header + cfg_space data + mmio data.
This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
To make reviewing this patch easier, I'm pasting before/after struct
sizes.
pahole -C gvt_firmware_header before/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/firmware.o
struct gvt_firmware_header {
u64 magic; /* 0 8 */
u32 crc32; /* 8 4 */
u32 version; /* 12 4 */
u64 cfg_space_size; /* 16 8 */
u64 cfg_space_offset; /* 24 8 */
u64 mmio_size; /* 32 8 */
u64 mmio_offset; /* 40 8 */
unsigned char data[1]; /* 48 1 */
/* size: 56, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
/* padding: 7 */
/* last cacheline: 56 bytes */
};
pahole -C gvt_firmware_header after/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/firmware.o
struct gvt_firmware_header {
u64 magic; /* 0 8 */
u32 crc32; /* 8 4 */
u32 version; /* 12 4 */
u64 cfg_space_size; /* 16 8 */
u64 cfg_space_offset; /* 24 8 */
u64 mmio_size; /* 32 8 */
u64 mmio_offset; /* 40 8 */
unsigned char data[]; /* 48 0 */
/* size: 48, cachelines: 1, members: 8 */
/* last cacheline: 48 bytes */
};
As you can see the additional byte of the fake-flexible array (data[1])
forced the compiler to pad the struct but those bytes aren't actually used
as first & last bytes (of both cfg_space and mmio) are controlled by the
<>_size and <>_offset members present in the gvt_firmware_header struct.
Link: KSPP#79
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]
Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y6Eu2604cqtryP4g@mail.google.com
solbjorn
pushed a commit
to solbjorn/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 4, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible
array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array
members in structures xfs_attr_leaf_name_local and
xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote.
The only binary differences reported after the changes are all like
these:
fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_leaf.o
_@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@
3b8: movzbl 0x2(%rbx),%eax
3bc: rol $0x8,%bp
3c0: movzwl %bp,%ebp
- 3c3: lea 0x2(%rax,%rbp,1),%ebx
+ 3c3: lea 0x3(%rax,%rbp,1),%ebx
3c7: call 3cc <xfs_attr_leaf_entsize+0x8c>
3c8: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_func_exit-0x4
3cc: or $0x3,%ebx
_@@ -454,7 +454,7 @@
3ea: movzbl 0x8(%rbx),%ebx
3ee: call 3f3 <xfs_attr_leaf_entsize+0xb3>
3ef: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_func_exit-0x4
- 3f3: add $0xa,%ebx
+ 3f3: add $0xb,%ebx
3f6: or $0x3,%ebx
3f9: add $0x1,%ebx
3fc: mov %ebx,%eax
similar changes in fs/xfs/scrub/attr.o and fs/xfs/xfs.o object files.
And the reason for this is because of the round_up() macro called in
functions xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_remote() and xfs_attr_leaf_entsize_local(),
which is compensanting for the one-byte reduction in size (due to the
flex-array transformation) of structures xfs_attr_leaf_name_remote and
xfs_attr_leaf_name_local. So, sizes remain the same before and after
changes.
This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
Link: KSPP#79
Link: KSPP#251
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 7, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct report_log_lun_list. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy(). Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#204 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 7, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct report_log_lun_list. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy(). Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#204 Acked-by: Don Brace <don.brace@microchip.com> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 9, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct report_log_lun_list. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy(). Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y+LJz/r6+UeLqnV3@work Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#204 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Acked-by: Don Brace <don.brace@microchip.com> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
ammarfaizi2
pushed a commit
to ammarfaizi2/linux-block
that referenced
this issue
Feb 13, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct brcmf_tlv. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP/linux#79 Link: KSPP/linux#253 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y9xjizhMujNEtpB4@work
ammarfaizi2
pushed a commit
to ammarfaizi2/linux-block
that referenced
this issue
Feb 13, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array members in multiple structures. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP/linux#79 Link: KSPP/linux#256 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y9xkECG3uTZ6T1dN@work
ammarfaizi2
pushed a commit
to ammarfaizi2/linux-block
that referenced
this issue
Feb 13, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible
array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array
member in struct mwifiex_ie_types_rates_param_set.
These are the only binary differences I see after the change:
mwifiex.o
_@@ -50154,7 +50154,7 @@
23514: R_X86_64_32S kmalloc_caches+0x50
23518: call 2351d <mwifiex_scan_networks+0x11d>
23519: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_read8-0x4
- 2351d: mov $0x225,%edx
+ 2351d: mov $0x224,%edx
23522: mov $0xdc0,%esi
23527: mov 0x0(%rip),%rdi # 2352e <mwifiex_scan_networks+0x12e>
2352a: R_X86_64_PC32 kmalloc_caches+0x4c
scan.o
_@@ -5582,7 +5582,7 @@
4394: R_X86_64_32S kmalloc_caches+0x50
4398: call 439d <mwifiex_scan_networks+0x11d>
4399: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_read8-0x4
- 439d: mov $0x225,%edx
+ 439d: mov $0x224,%edx
43a2: mov $0xdc0,%esi
43a7: mov 0x0(%rip),%rdi # 43ae <mwifiex_scan_networks+0x12e>
43aa: R_X86_64_PC32 kmalloc_caches+0x4c
and the reason for that is the following line:
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/scan.c:
1517 scan_cfg_out = kzalloc(sizeof(union mwifiex_scan_cmd_config_tlv),
1518 GFP_KERNEL);
sizeof(union mwifiex_scan_cmd_config_tlv) is now one-byte smaller due to the
flex-array transformation:
46 union mwifiex_scan_cmd_config_tlv {
47 /* Scan configuration (variable length) */
48 struct mwifiex_scan_cmd_config config;
49 /* Max allocated block */
50 u8 config_alloc_buf[MAX_SCAN_CFG_ALLOC];
51 };
Notice that MAX_SCAN_CFG_ALLOC is defined in terms of
sizeof(struct mwifiex_ie_types_rates_param_set), see:
26 /* Memory needed to store supported rate */
27 #define RATE_TLV_MAX_SIZE (sizeof(struct mwifiex_ie_types_rates_param_set) \
28 + HOSTCMD_SUPPORTED_RATES)
37 /* Maximum memory needed for a mwifiex_scan_cmd_config with all TLVs at max */
38 #define MAX_SCAN_CFG_ALLOC (sizeof(struct mwifiex_scan_cmd_config) \
39 + sizeof(struct mwifiex_ie_types_num_probes) \
40 + sizeof(struct mwifiex_ie_types_htcap) \
41 + CHAN_TLV_MAX_SIZE \
42 + RATE_TLV_MAX_SIZE \
43 + WILDCARD_SSID_TLV_MAX_SIZE)
This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Link: KSPP/linux#252
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y9xkjXeElSEQ0FPY@work
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 14, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct xen_page_directory. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#255 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/Y9xjN6Wa3VslgXeX@work Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
ajdlinux
added a commit
to ajdlinux/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 17, 2023
Using a one-element array as a fake flexible array is deprecated. Replace the one-element flexible arrays in rtas-types.h with C99 standard flexible array members instead. This helps us move towards enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 in future. Found using scripts/coccinelle/misc/flexible_array.cocci. Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Link: KSPP#21 Link: KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>
ajdlinux
added a commit
to ajdlinux/linux
that referenced
this issue
Feb 20, 2023
Using a one-element array as a fake flexible array is deprecated. Replace the one-element flexible arrays in rtas-types.h with C99 standard flexible array members instead. This helps us move towards enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 in future. Found using scripts/coccinelle/misc/flexible_array.cocci. Cc: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com> Cc: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org Link: KSPP#21 Link: KSPP#79 Signed-off-by: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@linux.ibm.com>
jessfraz
pushed a commit
to jessfraz/linux
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct vmw_view. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP/linux#79 Link: KSPP/linux#254 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Zack Rusin <zackr@vmware.com> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
someone5678
pushed a commit
to someone5678/zen-kernel
that referenced
this issue
Mar 31, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in structs _ATOM_DISPLAY_OBJECT_PATH, _ATOM_DISPLAY_OBJECT_PATH_TABLE, _ATOM_OBJECT_TABLE, GOP_VBIOS_CONTENT _ATOM_GPIO_VOLTAGE_OBJECT_V3 and refactor the rest of the code accordingly. It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch results in no binary output differences. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#239 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1] Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
bggRGjQaUbCoE
pushed a commit
to bggRGjQaUbCoE/android_kernel_samsung_sm8250
that referenced
this issue
May 3, 2023
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct f2fs_checkpoint, instead of a one-element arrays.
Notice that a temporary pointer to void '*tmp_ptr' was used in order to
fix the following errors when using a flexible array instead of a one
element array in struct f2fs_checkpoint:
CC [M] fs/f2fs/dir.o
In file included from fs/f2fs/dir.c:13:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h: In function ‘__bitmap_ptr’:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:49: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2238:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2238 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset;
| ^
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:287: fs/f2fs/dir.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:530: fs/f2fs] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:1819: fs] Error 2
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/603647e4.DeEFbl4eqljuwAUe%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
bggRGjQaUbCoE
pushed a commit
to bggRGjQaUbCoE/android_kernel_samsung_sm8250
that referenced
this issue
May 3, 2023
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct f2fs_checkpoint, instead of a one-element arrays.
Notice that a temporary pointer to void '*tmp_ptr' was used in order to
fix the following errors when using a flexible array instead of a one
element array in struct f2fs_checkpoint:
CC [M] fs/f2fs/dir.o
In file included from fs/f2fs/dir.c:13:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h: In function ‘__bitmap_ptr’:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:49: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2238:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2238 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset;
| ^
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:287: fs/f2fs/dir.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:530: fs/f2fs] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:1819: fs] Error 2
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/603647e4.DeEFbl4eqljuwAUe%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
bggRGjQaUbCoE
pushed a commit
to bggRGjQaUbCoE/android_kernel_samsung_sm8250
that referenced
this issue
May 4, 2023
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”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct f2fs_checkpoint, instead of a one-element arrays.
Notice that a temporary pointer to void '*tmp_ptr' was used in order to
fix the following errors when using a flexible array instead of a one
element array in struct f2fs_checkpoint:
CC [M] fs/f2fs/dir.o
In file included from fs/f2fs/dir.c:13:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h: In function ‘__bitmap_ptr’:
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2227:49: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2227 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset + sizeof(__le32);
| ^
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2238:40: error: invalid use of flexible array member
2238 | return &ckpt->sit_nat_version_bitmap + offset;
| ^
make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:287: fs/f2fs/dir.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:530: fs/f2fs] Error 2
make: *** [Makefile:1819: fs] Error 2
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: KSPP/linux#79
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/603647e4.DeEFbl4eqljuwAUe%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with flexible-array member in struct iavf_qvlist_info, and refactor the rest of the code, accordingly. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#289 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2023
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array members in multiple structures, and refactor the rest of the code, accordingly. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#291 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
May 16, 2023
… member One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array members in struct hfi_session_set_buffers_pkt, and refactor the rest of the code, accordingly. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#292 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
May 17, 2023
…ember
One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible
array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array
members in struct hfi_sys_set_resource_pkt, and refactor the rest of
the code, accordingly.
This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
The only binary differences seen before/after changes are the
following:
17ba: mov %rbx,%rdi
17bd: call 17c2 <pkt_sys_set_resource+0x42>
17be: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_write4-0x4
- 17c2: movl $0x14,(%rbx)
+ 17c2: movl $0x10,(%rbx)
17c8: lea 0x4(%rbx),%rdi
17cc: call 17d1 <pkt_sys_set_resource+0x51>
17cd: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_write4-0x4
which is expected once this accounts for the following line of code
at drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/hfi_cmds.c:73
73 pkt->hdr.size = sizeof(*pkt);
and as *pkt is of type struct hfi_sys_set_resource_pkt, sizeof(*pkt) is
reduced by 4 bytes, due to the flex-array transformation.
Link: KSPP#79
Link: KSPP#293
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
intel-lab-lkp
pushed a commit
to intel-lab-lkp/linux
that referenced
this issue
May 17, 2023
…members One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element arrays with flexible-array members in multiple structures. This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1]. This results in no differences in binary output. Link: KSPP#79 Link: KSPP#294 Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1] Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
List of open issues
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Latest version of this document: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: