[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200306195340.GJ2902@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2020 20:53:40 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] Btrfs: delayed-inode.h: Replace zero-length array
with flexible-array member
On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 10:49:12AM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
> extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
> variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
> introduced in C99:
>
> struct foo {
> int stuff;
> struct boo array[];
> };
>
> By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
> in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
> will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
> inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
>
> Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
> this change:
>
> "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
> may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
> zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
>
> This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
>
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
> [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
Added to devel queue, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists