On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 7:22 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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]
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Sure, why not, though I don't think that's the only one (e.g.,
bpf_storage_buffer's data is zero-length as well).
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> index f697647ceb54..30e1373fd437 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ struct bpf_queue_stack {
> u32 head, tail;
> u32 size; /* max_entries + 1 */
>
> - char elements[0] __aligned(8);
> + char elements[] __aligned(8);
> };
>
> static struct bpf_queue_stack *bpf_queue_stack(struct bpf_map *map)
> --
> 2.25.0
>
