[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507E6362.1080009@6wind.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:50:58 +0200
From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
CC: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: use ISO C standard for array in linux/xfrm.h
Le 17/10/2012 07:43, Steffen Klassert a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 05:42:33PM +0200, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com wrote:
>> From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>>
>> Use the ISO C standard compliant form instead of the gcc extension.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
>> ---
>> include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h | 10 +++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> index 28e493b..6a6a605 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h
>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct xfrm_sec_ctx {
>> __u8 ctx_alg;
>> __u16 ctx_len;
>> __u32 ctx_sid;
>> - char ctx_str[0];
>> + char ctx_str[];
>
> Hm, what's the benefit of such a change? The kernel source is full
> of these foo[0] type arrays. I don't see a reason to change this
> just for xfrm.
>
We got a problem with "ip xfrm state add" when compiled with gcc 4.4.6.
Error was "*** buffer overflow detected ***: ip terminated", because when we try
to copy the key in struct xfrm_algo, the function strncpy() calls some builtin
checks about the size of the destination buffer, which is 0. With the standard
notation, there is no problem.
With gcc 4.7.0, there is no problem, I don't know exactly which version of gcc
triggers the problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists