On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:42:06AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sun, Oct 01, 2023 at 09:23:17AM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > > > On 10/1/23 09:13, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > > Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it. > > > This is less verbose and more robust. > > > > > > While at it, prepare for the coming implementation by GCC and Clang of the > > > __counted_by attribute. Flexible array members annotated with __counted_by > > > can have their accesses bounds-checked at run-time checking via > > > CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for > > > strcpy/memcpy-family functions). > > > > I would prefer this as two separate patches. > > > > I kind of feel like it's all part of one thing. It's easier to review > as one patch. Also I think there is static analysis which sees struct_size() allocations and pushes people to use __counted_by() so doing it in two steps is sort of like introducing a static checker bug and then silencing it in the next patch. regards, dan carpenter
