Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/discovery: Replace fake flex-arrays with flexible-array members
Applied. Thanks!
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 7:08 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 02:26:37PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > Zero-length and one-element arrays are deprecated, and we are moving
> > towards adopting C99 flexible-array members, instead.
> >
> > Use the DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper macro to transform zero-length
> > arrays in a union into flexible-array members. And replace a one-element
> > array with a C99 flexible-array member.
> >
> > Address the following warnings found with GCC-13 and
> > -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 enabled:
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1009:89: warning: array
> > subscript kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned
> > int[]’} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1007:94: warning: array
> > subscript kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long
> > unsigned int[]’} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1310:94: warning: array
> > subscript k is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long
> > unsigned int[]’} [-Warray-bounds=]
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1309:57: warning: array
> > subscript k is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned int[]’}
> > [-Warray-bounds=]
> >
> > 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: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/193
> > Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/300
> > Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook
>
> --
> Kees Cook
Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/discovery: Replace fake flex-arrays with flexible-array members
On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 02:26:37PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Zero-length and one-element arrays are deprecated, and we are moving
> towards adopting C99 flexible-array members, instead.
>
> Use the DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper macro to transform zero-length
> arrays in a union into flexible-array members. And replace a one-element
> array with a C99 flexible-array member.
>
> Address the following warnings found with GCC-13 and
> -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 enabled:
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1009:89: warning: array
> subscript kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned int[]’}
> [-Warray-bounds=]
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1007:94: warning: array
> subscript kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long
> unsigned int[]’} [-Warray-bounds=]
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1310:94: warning: array
> subscript k is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long unsigned
> int[]’} [-Warray-bounds=]
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1309:57: warning: array
> subscript k is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned int[]’}
> [-Warray-bounds=]
>
> 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: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/193
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/300
> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook
--
Kees Cook
[PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/discovery: Replace fake flex-arrays with flexible-array members
Zero-length and one-element arrays are deprecated, and we are moving
towards adopting C99 flexible-array members, instead.
Use the DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper macro to transform zero-length
arrays in a union into flexible-array members. And replace a one-element
array with a C99 flexible-array member.
Address the following warnings found with GCC-13 and
-fstrict-flex-arrays=3 enabled:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1009:89: warning: array subscript
kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned int[]’}
[-Warray-bounds=]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1007:94: warning: array subscript
kk is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int[]’}
[-Warray-bounds=]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1310:94: warning: array subscript
k is outside array bounds of ‘uint64_t[0]’ {aka ‘long long unsigned int[]’}
[-Warray-bounds=]
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_discovery.c:1309:57: warning: array subscript
k is outside array bounds of ‘uint32_t[0]’ {aka ‘unsigned int[]’}
[-Warray-bounds=]
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: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/193
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/300
Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602902.html [1]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/discovery.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/discovery.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/discovery.h
index 9181e57887db..f43e29722ef7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/discovery.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/discovery.h
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ typedef struct ip_v3
uint8_t sub_revision : 4; /* HCID Sub-Revision */
uint8_t variant : 4;/* HW variant */
#endif
- uint32_t base_address[1]; /* Base Address list.
Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
+ uint32_t base_address[];/* Base Address list.
Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
} ip_v3;
typedef struct ip_v4 {
@@ -140,8 +140,8 @@ typedef struct ip_v4 {
uint8_t sub_revision : 4; /* HCID Sub-Revision */
#endif
union {
- uint32_t base_address[0]; /* 32-bit Base Address
list. Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
- uint64_t base_address_64[0];/* 64-bit Base Address
list. Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
+ DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(uint32_t, base_address); /* 32-bit Base
Address list. Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
+ DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY(uint64_t, base_address_64); /* 64-bit Base
Address list. Corresponds to the num_base_address field*/
} __packed;
} ip_v4;
--
2.34.1
