linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] greybus: Avoid fake flexible array for response data

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: <2025052700-ungodly-vitality-d86d@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 07:15:19 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: clingfei <clf700383@...il.com>
Cc: elder@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, johan@...nel.org,
	vireshk@...nel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] greybus: Avoid fake flexible array for response data

On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 01:06:35PM +0800, clingfei wrote:
> We want to get rid of zero size arrays and use flexible arrays instead.
> However, in this case the struct is just one flexible array of u8 which
> adds no value. Just use a pointer instead.

Not true at all, sorry, it does "add value".  Please read the greybus
specification if you have questions about this.

> 
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505262032.507AD8E0DC@keescook/

Please read our documentation for how to properly version kernel patches

> 
> Signed-off-by: clingfei <clf700383@...il.com>

Also, we need a "full"name, not an email alias.

> ---
>  drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c             | 12 ++++--------
>  include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h |  3 ---
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c
> index 14f1ff6d448c..b248d6717b71 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c
> @@ -144,15 +144,14 @@ gb_i2c_operation_create(struct gb_connection *connection,
>  }
>  
>  static void gb_i2c_decode_response(struct i2c_msg *msgs, u32 msg_count,
> -				   struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response)
> +				   u8 *data)
>  {
>  	struct i2c_msg *msg = msgs;
> -	u8 *data;
>  	u32 i;
>  
> -	if (!response)
> +	if (!data)
>  		return;
> -	data = response->data;
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i < msg_count; i++) {
>  		if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD) {
>  			memcpy(msg->buf, data, msg->len);
> @@ -188,10 +187,7 @@ static int gb_i2c_transfer_operation(struct gb_i2c_device *gb_i2c_dev,
>  
>  	ret = gb_operation_request_send_sync(operation);
>  	if (!ret) {
> -		struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response;
> -
> -		response = operation->response->payload;
> -		gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, response);
> +		gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, operation->response->payload);
>  		ret = msg_count;
>  	} else if (!gb_i2c_expected_transfer_error(ret)) {
>  		dev_err(dev, "transfer operation failed (%d)\n", ret);
> diff --git a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h
> index 820134b0105c..6a35c78b967b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h
> +++ b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h
> @@ -678,9 +678,6 @@ struct gb_i2c_transfer_request {
>  	__le16				op_count;
>  	struct gb_i2c_transfer_op	ops[];		/* op_count of these */
>  } __packed;
> -struct gb_i2c_transfer_response {
> -	__u8				data[0];	/* inbound data */
> -} __packed;

As I said before, you can't just delete structures that are exported to
userspace without breaking things.  Why is this change acceptable to do
that?

And how was any of this tested?

greg k-h