linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] mtd: rawnand: Replace one-element array with flexible-array member

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:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 00:32:24 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>, Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] mtd: rawnand: Replace one-element array with
 flexible-array member

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:30 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
<gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:10:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 11:02 PM Gustavo A. R. Silva
> > <gustavoars@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
> > > a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
> > > should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
> > > style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
> >
> > But this is not such a case, right? Isn't this a true fixed-size
> > array? It sounds like you're just changing it because it
> > pattern-matched on "array of length 1 at the end of a struct".
>
> Yeah; I should have changed that 'dynamically' part of the text above
> a bit. However, as I commented in the text below, in the case that more
> CS IDs are needed (let's wait for the maintainers to comment on this...)
> in the future, this change makes the code more maintainable, as for
> the allocation part, the developer would only have to update the CS_N
> macro to the number of CS IDs that are needed.

But in that case, shouldn't you change it to "int cs[CS_N]" and get
rid of the struct_size() stuff?