| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
When PageWaiters was added, updating this check was missed.
Reported-by: Nikolaus Rath <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
Fixes: 62906027091f ("mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit")
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
Instead of custom page dumping, use the standard helper.
Reported-by: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
fuse_fill_super_common() allocates and installs one fuse_device. Hence
virtiofs allocates and install all fuse devices by itself except one.
This makes logic little twisted. There does not seem to be any real need
that why virtiofs can't allocate and install all fuse devices itself.
So opt out of fuse device allocation and installation while calling
fuse_fill_super_common().
Regular fuse still wants fuse_fill_super_common() to install fuse_device.
It needs to prevent against races where two mounters are trying to mount
fuse using same fd. In that case one will succeed while other will get
-EINVAL.
virtiofs does not have this issue because sget_fc() resolves the race
w.r.t multiple mounters and only one instance of virtio_fs_fill_super()
should be in progress for same filesystem.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
Fuse mounts without "allow_other" are off-limits to all non-owners. Yet it
makes sense to allow querying st_dev on the root, since this value is
provided by the kernel, not the userspace filesystem.
Allow statx(2) with a zero request mask to succeed on a fuse mounts for all
users.
Reported-by: Nikolaus Rath <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
We want cached data to synced with the userspace filesystem on close(), for
example to allow getting correct st_blocks value. Do this regardless of
whether the userspace filesystem implements a FLUSH method or not.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
Under writeback mode, inode->i_blocks is not updated, making utils du
read st.blocks as 0.
For example, when using virtiofs (cache=always & nondax mode) with
writeback_cache enabled, writing a new file and check its disk usage
with du, du reports 0 usage.
# uname -r
5.6.0-rc6+
# mount -t virtiofs virtiofs /mnt/virtiofs
# rm -f /mnt/virtiofs/testfile
# create new file and do extend write
# xfs_io -fc "pwrite 0 4k" /mnt/virtiofs/testfile
wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
4 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0001 sec (28.103 MiB/sec and 7194.2446 ops/sec)
# du -k /mnt/virtiofs/testfile
0 <==== disk usage is 0
# stat -c %s,%b /mnt/virtiofs/testfile
4096,0 <==== i_size is correct, but st_blocks is 0
Fix it by invalidating attr in fuse_flush(), so we get up-to-date attr
from server on next getattr.
Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
Fixes: 04ec5af0776e "fuse: export fuse_end_request()"
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
commit 963545357202 ("fuse: reduce allocation size for splice_write")
changed size of bufs array, so BUG_ON which checks the index of the array
shold also be fixed.
[SzM: turn BUG_ON into WARN_ON]
Fixes: 963545357202 ("fuse: reduce allocation size for splice_write")
Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
Add a section to show the mount option and a subsection to show
the atime behavior.
Signed-off-by: Masayoshi Mizuma <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is
serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when
there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async
replies.
Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if TEST_DIR ==
SCRATCH_MNT (which is a misconfiguration):
- Process A is waiting for page lock in worker thread context and blocked
(virtio_fs_requests_done_work()).
- Process B is holding page lock and waiting for pending writes to
finish (fuse_wait_on_page_writeback()).
- Write requests are waiting in virtqueue and can't complete because
worker thread is blocked on page lock (process A).
Fix this by creating a unique work_struct for each async reply that can
block (O_DIRECT read).
Fixes: a62a8ef9d97d ("virtio-fs: add virtiofs filesystem")
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux
Pull clk fixes from Stephen Boyd:
"Two build fixes for a couple clk drivers and a fix for the Unisoc
serial clk where we want to keep it on for earlycon"
* tag 'clk-fixes-for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linux:
clk: sprd: don't gate uart console clock
clk: mmp2: fix link error without mmp2
clk: asm9260: fix __clk_hw_register_fixed_rate_with_accuracy typo
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull x86 and objtool fixes from Thomas Gleixner:
"A set of fixes for x86 and objtool:
objtool:
- Ignore the double UD2 which is emitted in BUG() when
CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP is enabled.
- Support clang non-section symbols in objtool ORC dump
- Fix switch table detection in .text.unlikely
- Make the BP scratch register warning more robust.
x86:
- Increase microcode maximum patch size for AMD to cope with new CPUs
which have a larger patch size.
- Fix a crash in the resource control filesystem when the removal of
the default resource group is attempted.
- Preserve Code and Data Prioritization enabled state accross CPU
hotplug.
- Update split lock cpu matching to use the new X86_MATCH macros.
- Change the split lock enumeration as Intel finaly decided that the
IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES bits are not architectural contrary to what
the SDM claims. !@#%$^!
- Add Tremont CPU models to the split lock detection cpu match.
- Add a missing static attribute to make sparse happy"
* tag 'x86-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
x86/split_lock: Add Tremont family CPU models
x86/split_lock: Bits in IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES are not architectural
x86/resctrl: Preserve CDP enable over CPU hotplug
x86/resctrl: Fix invalid attempt at removing the default resource group
x86/split_lock: Update to use X86_MATCH_INTEL_FAM6_MODEL()
x86/umip: Make umip_insns static
x86/microcode/AMD: Increase microcode PATCH_MAX_SIZE
objtool: Make BP scratch register warning more robust
objtool: Fix switch table detection in .text.unlikely
objtool: Support Clang non-section symbols in ORC generation
objtool: Support Clang non-section symbols in ORC dump
objtool: Fix CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP unreachable warnings
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull time namespace fix from Thomas Gleixner:
"An update for the proc interface of time namespaces: Use symbolic
names instead of clockid numbers. The usability nuisance of numbers
was noticed by Michael when polishing the man page"
* tag 'timers-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
proc, time/namespace: Show clock symbolic names in /proc/pid/timens_offsets
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull perf tooling fixes and updates from Thomas Gleixner:
- Fix the header line of perf stat output for '--metric-only --per-socket'
- Fix the python build with clang
- The usual tools UAPI header synchronization
* tag 'perf-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
tools headers: Synchronize linux/bits.h with the kernel sources
tools headers: Adopt verbatim copy of compiletime_assert() from kernel sources
tools headers: Update x86's syscall_64.tbl with the kernel sources
tools headers UAPI: Sync drm/i915_drm.h with the kernel sources
tools headers UAPI: Update tools's copy of drm.h headers
tools headers kvm: Sync linux/kvm.h with the kernel sources
tools headers UAPI: Sync linux/fscrypt.h with the kernel sources
tools include UAPI: Sync linux/vhost.h with the kernel sources
tools arch x86: Sync asm/cpufeatures.h with the kernel sources
tools headers UAPI: Sync linux/mman.h with the kernel
tools headers UAPI: Sync sched.h with the kernel
tools headers: Update linux/vdso.h and grab a copy of vdso/const.h
perf stat: Fix no metric header if --per-socket and --metric-only set
perf python: Check if clang supports -fno-semantic-interposition
tools arch x86: Sync the msr-index.h copy with the kernel sources
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull irq fixes from Thomas Gleixner:
"A set of fixes/updates for the interrupt subsystem:
- Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq(). All users have been converted
so remove them before new users surface.
- A set of bugfixes for various interrupt chip drivers
- Add a few missing static attributes to address sparse warnings"
* tag 'irq-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Make bcm7038_l1_of_init() static
irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: Make legacy_bindings static
irqchip/meson-gpio: Fix HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order
irqchip/sifive-plic: Fix maximum priority threshold value
irqchip/ti-sci-inta: Fix processing of masked irqs
irqchip/mbigen: Free msi_desc on device teardown
irqchip/gic-v4.1: Update effective affinity of virtual SGIs
irqchip/gic-v4.1: Add support for VPENDBASER's Dirty+Valid signaling
genirq: Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq()
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull scheduler fixes from Thomas Gleixner:
"Two fixes for the scheduler:
- Work around an uninitialized variable warning where GCC can't
figure it out.
- Allow 'isolcpus=' to skip unknown subparameters so that older
kernels work with the commandline of a newer kernel. Improve the
error output while at it"
* tag 'sched-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
sched/vtime: Work around an unitialized variable warning
sched/isolation: Allow "isolcpus=" to skip unknown sub-parameters
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip
Pull RCU fix from Thomas Gleixner:
"A single bugfix for RCU to prevent taking a lock in NMI context"
* tag 'core-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip:
rcu: Don't acquire lock in NMI handler in rcu_nmi_enter_common()
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4
Pull ext4 fixes from Ted Ts'o:
"Miscellaneous bug fixes and cleanups for ext4, including a fix for
generic/388 in data=journal mode, removing some BUG_ON's, and cleaning
up some compiler warnings"
* tag 'ext4_for_linus_stable' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4:
ext4: convert BUG_ON's to WARN_ON's in mballoc.c
ext4: increase wait time needed before reuse of deleted inode numbers
ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es' in ext4_jbd2.c
ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es'
ext4: do not zeroout extents beyond i_disksize
ext4: fix return-value types in several function comments
ext4: use non-movable memory for superblock readahead
ext4: use matching invalidatepage in ext4_writepage
|
|
Pull cifs fixes from Steve French:
"Three small smb3 fixes: two debug related (helping network tracing for
SMB2 mounts, and the other removing an unintended debug line on
signing failures), and one fixing a performance problem with 64K
pages"
* tag '5.7-rc-smb3-fixes' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6:
smb3: remove overly noisy debug line in signing errors
cifs: improve read performance for page size 64KB & cache=strict & vers=2.1+
cifs: dump the session id and keys also for SMB2 sessions
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux
Pull flexible-array member conversion from Gustavo Silva:
"The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array
member[1][2], introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof
operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original
implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible
array members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of
code in which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously
applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances
may be hiding some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member
convertions) will also help to get completely rid of those sorts of
issues.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
quite a while now and, 238 more of these patches have already been
merged into 5.7-rc1.
There are a couple hundred more of these issues waiting to be
addressed in the whole codebase"
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
* tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (28 commits)
xattr.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: fiemap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
uapi: linux: dlm_device.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
tpm_eventlog.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ti_wilink_st.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
swap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
skbuff.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
sched: topology.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rslib.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
rio.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
posix_acl.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
platform_data: wilco-ec.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
memcontrol.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
list_lru.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
lib: cpu_rmap: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
irq.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ihex.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
igmp.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
genalloc.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
ethtool.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
...
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley:
"Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata"
* tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi:
scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write
scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN
scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC
scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID
scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer
scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings
scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
|