Kees Cook wrote: > > > On April 5, 2023 5:22:55 PM PDT, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Dan Williams wrote: > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > From: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > ACPICA commit 44f1af0664599e87bebc3a1260692baa27b2f264 > >> > > >> > Similar to "Replace one-element array with flexible-array", replace the > >> > 1-element array with a proper flexible array member as defined by C99. > >> > > >> > This allows the code to operate without tripping compile-time and run- > >> > time bounds checkers (e.g. via __builtin_object_size(), -fsanitize=bounds, > >> > and/or -fstrict-flex-arrays=3). > >> > > >> > The sizeof() uses with struct acpi_nfit_flush_address and struct > >> > acpi_nfit_smbios have been adjusted to drop the open-coded subtraction > >> > of the trailing single element. The result is no binary differences in > >> > .text nor .data sections. > >> > > >> > Link: https://github.com/acpica/acpica/commit/44f1af06 > >> > Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > > > >Unit tests say NAK, though. > > > >This causes a regression, but I think I see where. Will send a fixed > >patch in a bit. > > Ah, which tests? I must have missed something! You're doubly forgiven for not running them because 1/ they typically require setting up a VM, and 2/ they've been broken since v6.3-rc1 due to where the test modules moved.
