linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/pm: replace 1-element arrays with flexible-array members

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:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:29:58 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@...hound.fi>
Cc:     evan.quan@....com, alexander.deucher@....com,
        christian.koenig@....com, Xinhui.Pan@....com,
        skhan@...uxfoundation.org, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amd/pm: replace 1-element arrays with flexible-array
 members

On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 08:54:35AM +0200, José Pekkarinen wrote:
> The following case seems to be safe to be replaced with a flexible array
> to clean up the added coccinelle warning. This patch will just do it.
> 
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h:76:38-63: WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays)
> 
> Signed-off-by: José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@...hound.fi>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h
> index c7b61222d258..1ce4087005f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h
> @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ struct smu8_register_index_data_pair {
>  
>  struct smu8_ih_meta_data {
>  	uint32_t command;
> -	struct smu8_register_index_data_pair register_index_value_pair[1];
> +	struct smu8_register_index_data_pair register_index_value_pair[];

Did you just change this structure size without any need to change any
code as well?  How was this tested?

thanks,

greg k-h