| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:13:17 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, 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 06:55:33PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > ... 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... The situation is even more nasty - the one sized fake flex-array actually is in the middle of the structure. Besides sizeof-expressions taking the one member array into account only members before the variable sized array are used. I've started a series cleaning up the few structures that were done that way (for whatever reason), but it's pretty intrusive. I don't think papering over these warnings at this point is a good idea. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists