On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:03:43PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 01:53:18PM -0500, 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
> > 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]
> >
> > sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array
> > members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in
> > which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to
> > zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances may be hiding
> > some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member conversions) will also
> > help to get completely rid of those sorts of issues.
> >
> > 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...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/greybus/arpc.h | 2 -
> > include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h | 44
> > +++++++++++++++---------------
>
> I noticed Greg just applied this one to his -testing branch, but do we
> really want this in greybus_protocols.h, which is meant to be shared
> with the firmware side? Perhaps not an issue, just figured I'd point
> this out.
Why not, it should be the same thing, right? No logic has changed that
I see.
thanks,
greg k-h
