bpf: queue_stack_maps: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 bpf: queue_stack_maps: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};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 inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
--- kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c +1 -1
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ struct bpf_queue_stack {u32 head, tail;u32 size;/* max_entries + 1 */ -char elements[0 ]__aligned(8) ; +char elements[]__aligned(8) ; };static struct bpf_queue_stack *bpf_queue_stack (struct bpf_map *map)
Signature · 1 line
2.25.0
Quoted 23 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; };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 inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
Quoted 8 lines
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit76497732932f("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>---
Sure, why not, though I don't think that's the only one (e.g., bpf_storage_buffer's data is zero-length as well).
Quoted 19 lines
kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c +1
-2@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ struct bpf_queue_stack {u32 head, tail;u32 size;/* max_entries + 1 */ -char elements[0 ]__aligned(8) ; +char elements[]__aligned(8) ; };static struct bpf_queue_stack *bpf_queue_stack (struct bpf_map *map) --2.25.0
Daniel Borkmann
maintainerQuoted 31 lines · Andrii Nakryiko
Quoted 29 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; };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 inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit76497732932f("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>Sure, why not, though I don't think that's the only one (e.g., bpf_storage_buffer's data is zero-length as well).
Acked-by Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]>
+1, Gustavo, there are several such instances in the whole BPF subsystem. Please combine them all into a single patch, including https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1239563/, and resubmit.
Thanks,
Daniel