On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:34:37AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:18 PM Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > If some padding is added because of the presence of a flexible
> > array member, the size of the structure will be greater than
> > the offset of this flexible array which can cause some
> > problems if the assumption is made that these 2 size must be
> > identical (which is easy to do since such flexible arrays are
> > conceptually 'after' the structure itself).
>
> The warning seems pointless, and the explanation above is wrong.
>
> Flexible array padding is normal and good. IOW, if you have
>
> struct odd_struct {
> char c;
> unsigned int flex[];
> };
>
> then the flexible array - and the structure - very much should be
> aligned on 'unsigned int', and both the offset of the flex-array and
> the (bogus) size of the structure is 4.
>
> So this is a normal case and nothing wrong with it, and the above is
> the "flexible array caused padding" one (but sizeof and offsetof
> match).
>
> And the case that causes sizeof() and offsetof() to not match is
> normal too: but is not that the flexible array member caused padding,
> but that *other* members did.
>
> IOW, maybe you have a structure like this:
>
> struct other {
> uint64_t a;
> uint32_t b;
> char flex[];
> };
>
> and now "offsetof(flex)" is 12, but "sizeof(struct other)" is 16,
> because the flex-array itself has no real alignment requirement and
> will just be laid out after the 12 bytes of a/b, but the structure has
> 8-byte alignment due to 'a'.
>
> So I don't think the warning is interesting, because this is a
> perfectly normal condition too.
>
> And I don't think your explanation for the warning makes sense,
> because you say "padding is added because of the presence of a
> flexible array member", but that's not at all what is going on. The
> padding is added because of *other* members.
Yes, my explanation is completely wrong. The warning is indeed just
about sizeof() != offset() and I added because it seemed odd to me
but ...
> Anyway, the above is just an example of why "sizeof()" itself makes no
> sense on these things. A "sizeof()" of a structure with a flexible
> array member is inherently pointless. You can't use it for anything
> really valid, and it doesn't have any sensible meaning.
>
> But I don't think that has anything to do with warning about padding.
> The padding is right - it's the sizeof() itself that is nonsensical.
Yes, indeed, it's perfectly normal. I'll drop this patch.
> So in the kernel, we would
>
> - start warning about 'sizeof(flex_struct)'
Adding this warning by default annoys me slightly because it will
add 5700+ warnings to the 18000 already present and I think sparse
is already underused because it is very/too noisy. But I guess that
most occurrences come from a few macros and thus should be easy to
get rid off.
> - make our "struct_size(s, m, N)" construct use
> "offsetof(m)+N*sizeof(*m)" instead of using sizeof().
This accounts for only 432 occurences of sizeof(flex-array),
leaving 5287 other ones.
> Of course, it may well be that we end up with trouble just because we
> end up _needing_ sizeof() for some reason. I can't think of any sane
> situation off the top of my head, but who knows what odd macros etc we
> might have that end up doing sizeof() as part of things..
Well, yes, for my part, I find the number of nested flexible arrays a
bit worrying and much less sensical than the sizeof but .. live and see.
-- Luc
