Skip to contentSkip to conversation

ext4: namei: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member

PATCH Applied Gustavo A. R. Silva 2 participants 3 messages Feb 13, 2020 – Mar 6, 2020 ext4 file system

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

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
index 129d2ebae00d..77c327d904bf 100644
@@ -233,13 +233,13 @@ struct dx_root
 		u8 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
#1 lore raw

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] 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
index 129d2ebae00d..77c327d904bf 100644
@@ -233,13 +233,13 @@ struct dx_root
 		u8 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[];
 };
 
 
maintainer Applied
#2 lore raw
In reply to Gustavo A. R. Silva
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] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Thanks, applied.

- Ted