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: <20241029130037.2c7e96c7@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:00:37 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
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 Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:18:56 -0600 Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> By priority I mean if preserving the reverse xmas tree is a most
> after any changes that mess in some way with it. As in the case below,
> where things were already messed up:
> 
> +       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;
> -       const struct ethtool_link_settings *base = &lk_ksettings->base;
>          bool set_pause = false;
>          u32 speed, lanes = 0;
>          int rc = 0;
> 
> Should I leave the rest as-is, or should I now have to rearrange the whole
> thing to accommodate for the convention?

Don't rearrange the rest. The point is that if you touch a line you end
up with a delete and an add. So you can as well move it to get it closer
to the convention. But that's just nice to have, I brought the entire
thing up because of the net/ethtool/ code which previously followed the
convention and after changes it wouldn't.

> How I see this, we can take a couple of directions:
> 
> a) when things are already messed up, just implement your changes and leave
> the rest as-is.

This is acceptable, moving things closer to convention is nice to have.

> b) when your changes mess things up, clean it up and accommodate for the
> convention.

Yes, if by "your changes mess things up" you mean that the code follows
the convention exactly for a given function - then yes, the changes must
remain complaint. Not sure why you say "clean it up", if the code is
complaint you shouldn't break it. No touching of pre-existing code
(other than modified lines) should be necessary.

> extra option:
> 
> c) this is probably going to be a case by case thing and we may ask you
>     to do more changes as we see fit.
> 
> To be clear, I have no issue with c) (because it's basically how things
> usually work), as long as maintainers don't expect v1 of any patch to
> be in pristine form. In any other case, I would really like to be crystal
> clear about what's expected and what's not.