linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fsnotify: 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]

Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 09:39:36 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsnotify: avoid gcc-10 zero-length-bounds warning



On 5/5/20 09:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> gcc-10 warns about accesses into the f_handle[] zero-length array.
> 
> fs/notify/fdinfo.c: In function 'show_mark_fhandle':
> fs/notify/fdinfo.c:66:47: error: array subscript 'i' is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'unsigned char[0]' [-Werror=zero-length-bounds]
>    66 |   seq_printf(m, "%02x", (int)f.handle.f_handle[i]);
>       |                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
> In file included from fs/notify/fdinfo.c:3:
> include/linux/fs.h:988:16: note: while referencing 'f_handle'
>   988 |  unsigned char f_handle[0];
>       |                ^~~~~~~~
> 
> This is solved by using a flexible array instead.
> 
> Cc: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> Gustavo has done the same thing as part of a treewide change, but keeping
> this separate lets us backport it to stable kernels more easily later.

Arnd,

I wonder why would we need to backport these changes to -stable... merely
because of the use of a new version of GCC?

Thanks
--
Gustavo