On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:24:04AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [ Upstream commit 987f028b8637cfa7658aa456ae73f8f21a7a7f6f ]
>
> Old code in the kernel uses 1-byte and 0-byte arrays to indicate the
> presence of a "variable length array":
>
> struct something {
> int length;
> u8 data[1];
> };
>
> struct something *instance;
>
> instance = kmalloc(sizeof(*instance) + size, GFP_KERNEL);
> instance->length = size;
> memcpy(instance->data, source, size);
>
> There is also 0-byte arrays. Both cases pose confusion for things like
> sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, etc.[1] Instead, the preferred mechanism
> to declare variable-length types such as the one above is a flexible array
> member[2] which need to be the last member of a structure and empty-sized:
>
> struct something {
> int stuff;
> u8 data[];
> };
>
> Also, by making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
> in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
> will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
> unadvertenly introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
>
> [1] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
> [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200120235326.GA29231@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/char/hpet.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/hpet.c b/drivers/char/hpet.c
> index 5b38d7a8202a1..38c2ae93ce492 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/hpet.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/hpet.c
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ struct hpets {
> unsigned long hp_delta;
> unsigned int hp_ntimer;
> unsigned int hp_which;
> - struct hpet_dev hp_dev[1];
> + struct hpet_dev hp_dev[];
> };
>
Umm, why are you backporting this without the commit that fixes it? Does your
AUTOSEL process really still not pay attention to Fixes tags? They are there
for a reason.
And for that matter, why are you backporting it all, given that this is a
cleanup and not a fix?
- Eric
