| Message ID | 20200507190046.GA15298@embeddedor (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | d9fd428a304f2e33caf609011cdc9f17a8d3fb9e |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dmaengine: at_xdmac: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array | expand |
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:00:46PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > 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 <gustavoars@kernel.org> Acked-by: Ludovic Desroches<ludovic.desroches@microchip.com> Ludovic Desroches > --- > drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c b/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c > index bb0eaf38b594..fd92f048c491 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c > +++ b/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ struct at_xdmac { > struct clk *clk; > u32 save_gim; > struct dma_pool *at_xdmac_desc_pool; > - struct at_xdmac_chan chan[0]; > + struct at_xdmac_chan chan[]; > }; > > >
On 07-05-20, 14:00, 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") Applied, thanks
diff --git a/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c b/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c index bb0eaf38b594..fd92f048c491 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c +++ b/drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ struct at_xdmac { struct clk *clk; u32 save_gim; struct dma_pool *at_xdmac_desc_pool; - struct at_xdmac_chan chan[0]; + struct at_xdmac_chan chan[]; };
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 <gustavoars@kernel.org> --- drivers/dma/at_xdmac.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)