[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202305111410.CFE0875F@keescook>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:13:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>, GCC <gcc@....gnu.org>,
Alejandro Colomar <alx@...nx.com>,
Andrew Clayton <a.clayton@...nx.com>,
Andrew Clayton <andrew@...ital-domain.net>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [wish] Flexible array members in unions
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:53:52PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023, Kees Cook via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 06:29:10PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > On 5/11/23 18:07, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Would you allow flexible array members in unions? Is there any
> > > > strong reason to disallow them?
> >
> > Yes please!! And alone in a struct, too.
> >
> > AFAICT, there is no mechanical/architectural reason to disallow them
> > (especially since they _can_ be constructed with some fancy tricks,
> > and they behave as expected.) My understanding is that it's disallowed
> > due to an overly strict reading of the very terse language that created
> > flexible arrays in C99.
>
> Standard C has no such thing as a zero-size object or type, which would
> lead to problems with a struct or union that only contains a flexible
> array member there.
Ah-ha, okay. That root cause makes sense now.
Why are zero-sized objects missing in Standard C? Or, perhaps, the better
question is: what's needed to support the idea of a zero-sized object?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists