On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The problem is the _size_ of the array. Without that initializer for
> SForced case, it is one entry too small, and you get a random access
> past the end of the array.
>
> The patch is definitely correct.
>
Yes, the patch is definitely correct. It is a good catch.
I purpose a slightly different way to fix it. I think it is better just give the
array of a size instead of using the designated initializer to determine the
array size. Sequential initializer to determine the array size is fine.
Jeff, how about some thing like this:
Chris
diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
index 66f9353..a01ba00 100644
--- a/parse.c
+++ b/parse.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ enum {
};
enum {
- SNone = 0, STypedef, SAuto, SRegister, SExtern, SStatic, SForced
+ SNone = 0, STypedef, SAuto, SRegister, SExtern, SStatic, SForced, SMax
};
static struct symbol_op typedef_op = {
@@ -1279,7 +1279,7 @@ static const char *storage_class[] =
static unsigned long storage_modifiers(struct decl_state *ctx)
{
- static unsigned long mod[] =
+ static unsigned long mod[SMax] =
{
[SAuto] = MOD_AUTO,
[SExtern] = MOD_EXTERN,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
