linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] iio: cros_ec: Avoid -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warning

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: <Z9jRtoDZM0opi_4C@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 01:51:50 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
	"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] iio: cros_ec: Avoid -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end
 warning

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 12:04:47PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:10:38 +1030
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 17/03/25 12:02, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:24:59AM +1030, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:  
> > >>   static int cros_ec_get_host_cmd_version_mask(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> > >>   					     u16 cmd_offset, u16 cmd, u32 *mask)
> > >>   {
> > >> +	DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(struct cros_ec_command, buf, data,
> > >> +			sizeof(struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions));  
> > > 
> > > max(sizeof(struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions),
> > >      sizeof(struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions))?  
> > 
> > I considered that, but DEFINE_RAW_FLEX() complains about it due to the
> > 
> > _Static_assert(__builtin_constant_p(count),				\
> > 		       "onstack flex array members require compile-time const count");
> > 
> Maybe add an assert that you indeed have the larger of the two + a comment
> on why it matters?

Or, is there a way for using compiler-time MAX()?  I failed to find so.