On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 11:25:14PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > On Fri. 6 Jan 2023 at 22:19, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 5:28 AM Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Zero-length arrays are deprecated[1]. Replace struct ethtool_rxnfc's > > > "rule_locs" 0-length array with a flexible array. Detected with GCC 13, > > > using -fstrict-flex-arrays=3: > [...] > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > > index 58e587ba0450..3135fa0ba9a4 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ethtool.h > > > @@ -1183,7 +1183,7 @@ struct ethtool_rxnfc { > > > __u32 rule_cnt; > > > __u32 rss_context; > > > }; > > > - __u32 rule_locs[0]; > > > + __u32 rule_locs[]; > > > > Stupid question: Is this syntax allowed in UAPI headers despite not > > being part of standard C90 or C++? Are we relying on all C/C++ > > compilers for pre-C99 having gcc/clang extensions? > > The [0] isn't part of the C90 standard either. So having to choose > between [0] and [], the latter is the most portable nowadays. > > If I do a bit of speleology, I can see that C99 flexible array members > were used as early as v2.6.19 (released in November 2006): > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v2.6.19/source/include/linux/usb/audio.h#L36 > > This is prior to the include/linux and include/uapi/linux split, but > believe me, this usb/audio.h file is indeed part of the uapi. > So, yes, using C99 flexible array members in the UAPI is de facto > allowed because it was used for the last 16 years. > > An interesting sub question would be: > > What are the minimum compiler requirements to build a program using > the Linux UAPI? You're right -- we haven't explicitly documented this. C99 seems like the defacto minimum, though. > And, after research, I could not find the answer. The requirements to > build the kernel are well documented: > > https://docs.kernel.org/process/changes.html#changes > > But no clue for the uapi. I guess that at one point in 2006, people > decided that it was time to set the minimum requirement to C99. Maybe > this matches the end of life of the latest pre-C99 GCC version? The > detailed answer must be hidden somewhere on lkml. I would make the argument that the requirements for building Linux UAPI should match that of building the kernel... -- Kees Cook