linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: host: replace zero-length 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:10:42 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc:     mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr, lv.ruyi@....com.cn,
        cai.huoqing@...ux.dev, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: host: replace zero-length array with flexible-array
 member

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 08:03:37AM +0000, cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> From: Lv Ruyi <lv.ruyi@....com.cn>
> 
> 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].
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.16/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
> 
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Lv Ruyi <lv.ruyi@....com.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c b/drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c
> index b741670525e3..86f92aadeb0e 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/oxu210hp-hcd.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ struct ehci_regs {
>  #define FLAG_CF		(1<<0)		/* true: we'll support "high speed" */
>  
>  	/* PORTSC: offset 0x44 */
> -	u32		port_status[0];	/* up to N_PORTS */
> +	u32		port_status[];	/* up to N_PORTS */
>  /* 31:23 reserved */
>  #define PORT_WKOC_E	(1<<22)		/* wake on overcurrent (enable) */
>  #define PORT_WKDISC_E	(1<<21)		/* wake on disconnect (enable) */
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

How did you test to verify that this change is correct?