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: <20201001101206.6e4beea7@xps13> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:12:06 +0200 From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>, 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 Hi Jann, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote on Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:32:24 +0200: > 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? I do agree with Jann, I think it's best to consider this a fixed-size array for now. If we ever want to extend the number of supported CS, there is much more rework involved anyway. Thanks, Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists