ext4: namei: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
PATCH 1/1 ext4: namei: 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")
--- fs/ext4/namei.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/ext4/namei.c +2 -2
@@ -233,13 +233,13 @@ struct dx_rootu8 unused_flags; } info; -struct dx_entry entries[0 ]; +struct dx_entry entries[]; };struct dx_node {struct fake_dirent fake; -struct dx_entry entries[0 ]; +struct dx_entry entries[]; };
Signature · 1 line
2.25.0
Hi all,
Friendly ping: who can take this?
Thanks
--
Gustavo
Quoted 54 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")Signed-off-by Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>--- fs/ext4/namei.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)fs/ext4/namei.c +2
-2@@ -233,13 +233,13 @@ struct dx_rootu8 unused_flags; } info; -struct dx_entry entries[0 ]; +struct dx_entry entries[]; };struct dx_node {struct fake_dirent fake; -struct dx_entry entries[0 ]; +struct dx_entry entries[]; };
Quoted 22 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 7 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]>
Thanks, applied.
- Ted