linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2][next] net: ethtool: Avoid thousands of -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings

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]

Message-ID: <26d37815-c652-418c-99b0-9d3e6ab78893@embeddedor.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:48:32 -0600
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
 Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
 Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>, Satish Kharat <satishkh@...co.com>,
 Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][next] net: ethtool: Avoid thousands of
 -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings



On 29/10/24 12:39, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 12:18:56 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>>> I don't think you want to change this. `lsettings` is based on `ksettings`. So,
>>>> `ksettings` should go first. The same scenario for the one below.
>>>
>>> In which case you need to move the init out of line.
>>
>> So, the same applies to the case below?
>>
>> 	const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
>> 	struct bnxt *bp = netdev_priv(dev);
>> 	struct bnxt_link_info *link_info = &bp->link_info;
> 
> Do you mean the bp and bp->link_info lines?
> You're not touching them, so leave them be.
> 
>> Is this going to be a priority for any other netdev patches in the future?
> 
> It's been the preferred formatting for a decade or more.
> Which is why the net/ethtool/ code you're touching follows
> this convention. We're less strict about driver code.

I mean, the thing about moving the initialization out of line to accommodate
for the convention.

What I'm understanding is that now you're asking me to change the following

      const struct linkmodes_reply_data *data = LINKMODES_REPDATA(reply_base);
      const struct ethtool_link_ksettings *ksettings = &data->ksettings;
-    const struct ethtool_link_settings *lsettings = &ksettings->base;
+    const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *lsettings = &ksettings->base;

to this:

      const struct linkmodes_reply_data *data = LINKMODES_REPDATA(reply_base);
      const struct ethtool_link_settings_hdr *lsettings;
      const struct ethtool_link_ksettings *ksettings;

      ksettings = &data->ksettings;
      lsettings = &ksettings->base;

I just want to have clear if this is going to be a priority and in which scenarios
should I/others modify the code to accommodate for the convention?

--
Gustavo