lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3XqE0m2UmRh+OtmYJRhyCBYY=sdJKaWBXtJZKCRpLMYQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:32:24 +0200 From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org> Cc: Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] mtd: rawnand: Replace one-element array with flexible-array member On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:30 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:10:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva > > <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote: > > > There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having > > > a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code > > > should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older > > > style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2]. > > > > But this is not such a case, right? Isn't this a true fixed-size > > array? It sounds like you're just changing it because it > > pattern-matched on "array of length 1 at the end of a struct". > > Yeah; I should have changed that 'dynamically' part of the text above > a bit. However, as I commented in the text below, in the case that more > CS IDs are needed (let's wait for the maintainers to comment on this...) > in the future, this change makes the code more maintainable, as for > the allocation part, the developer would only have to update the CS_N > macro to the number of CS IDs that are needed. But in that case, shouldn't you change it to "int cs[CS_N]" and get rid of the struct_size() stuff?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists