linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] nvme: avoid gcc-10 zero-length-bounds 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: <20200501073256.GA23452@lst.de>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 09:32:56 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Israel Rukshin <israelr@...lanox.com>,
        Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] nvme: avoid gcc-10 zero-length-bounds warning

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:30:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> When CONFIG_ARCH_NO_SG_CHAIN is set, op->sgl[0] cannot be dereferenced,
> as gcc-10 now points out:
> 
> drivers/nvme/host/fc.c: In function 'nvme_fc_init_request':
> drivers/nvme/host/fc.c:1774:29: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct scatterlist[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
>  1774 |  op->op.fcp_req.first_sgl = &op->sgl[0];
>       |                             ^~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/nvme/host/fc.c:98:21: note: while referencing 'sgl'
>    98 |  struct scatterlist sgl[NVME_INLINE_SG_CNT];
>       |                     ^~~
> 
> I don't know if this is a legitimate warning or a false-positive.
> If this is just a false alarm, the warning is easily suppressed
> by interpreting the array as a pointer.

This looks like a surpression to be, but then again I find the new
code actually cleaner, so I'm fine with it :)