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:   Thu, 09 Nov 2023 10:43:50 +0200
From:   José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@...hound.fi>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 2023-11-08 09:29, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

     I didn't find any use of that struct member, if I missed
something here, please let me know and I'll happily address any
needed further work.

     José.