linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Silence bounds checking compiler warning

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110623175533.GK11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:55:33 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@...il.com>,
	Alex Elder <aelder@....com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Silence bounds checking compiler warning

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:27:26AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > gcc with -Warray-bounds generates a false positive on this
> > since xfs defines the struct with u8 name[1]; to be able to
> > add a tag at the end.
> 
> A better way would be to define it as name[0]. Then the compiler
> would know it's a VLA. You may need to check noone relies on
> the one byte though.

... and even better is to write in real C and have u8 name[]; in the
end of your structure.  That's the standard C99 for this kind of thing
(see 6.7.2.1p2, p16).  Zero-sized array is a gccism predating standard
flexible array members and since the standard syntax is accepted by
any gcc version that might be recent enough to build the kernel...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/