Hello,
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:54:23PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> From your earlier comment I understand that there is no problem in
> this case because we know that cgroup_root->cgrp will always be
> empty.
>
> However in other instances the warning could point out actual errors
> in the code, so I think it is good to have this warning generally
> enabled. If cgroup_root was defined in a .c file we could consider to
> disable the warning locally, but since the definition is in a header
> that is widely included (indirectly through linux/cgroup.h and
> net/sock.h) this doesn't seem to be an option.
>
> Is there a good reason for the current position of cgrp within
> cgroup_root? If there are no drawbacks in moving it to the end of
> the struct I think Nick's patch is a reasonable solution.
This all sounds really bogus to me. Let's say we have something like
the following.
struct flex_struct {
int array[];
};
And the following two usages.
1.
struct flex_struct *fs =
kmalloc(sizeof(struct flex_struct) + N * sizeof(int));
2.
struct enclosing_struct es {
struct flex_struct fs;
int fs_array_storage[N];
};
struct enclosing_struct *es =
kmalloc(sizeof(struct enclosing_struct));
So, you're saying #1 is okay but #2 is not, which is just silly. The
compiler can't warn correctly about flex array members whether they're
embedded or not. Nothing prevents somebody accessing beyond N in #1
either.
This effort seems really pointless to me. Let's please not waste any
more bandwidth on this.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
