- 23 Apr, 2020 1 commit
-
-
Sean Christopherson authored
Use follow_pfn() to get the PFN of a PFNMAP VMA instead of assuming that vma->vm_pgoff holds the base PFN of the VMA. This fixes a bug where attempting to do VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA on an arbitrary PFNMAP'd region of memory calculates garbage for the PFN. Hilariously, this only got detected because the first "PFN" calculated by vaddr_get_pfn() is PFN 0 (vma->vm_pgoff==0), and iommu_iova_to_phys() uses PA==0 as an error, which triggers a WARN in vfio_unmap_unpin() because the translation "failed". PFN 0 is now unconditionally reserved on x86 in order to mitigate L1TF, which causes is_invalid_reserved_pfn() to return true and in turns results in vaddr_get_pfn() returning success for PFN 0. Eventually the bogus calculation runs into PFNs that aren't reserved and leads to failure in vfio_pin_map_dma(). The subsequent call to vfio_remove_dma() attempts to unmap PFN 0 and WARNs. WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 5130 at drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c:750 vfio_unmap_unpin+0x2e1/0x310 [vfio_iommu_type1] Modules linked in: vfio_pci vfio_virqfd vfio_iommu_type1 vfio ... CPU: 8 PID: 5130 Comm: sgx Tainted: G W 5.6.0-rc5-705d787c7fee-vfio+ #3 Hardware name: Intel Corporation Mehlow UP Server Platform/Moss Beach Server, BIOS CNLSE2R1.D00.X119.B49.1803010910 03/01/2018 RIP: 0010:vfio_unmap_unpin+0x2e1/0x310 [vfio_iommu_type1] Code: <0f> 0b 49 81 c5 00 10 00 00 e9 c5 fe ff ff bb 00 10 00 00 e9 3d fe RSP: 0018:ffffbeb5039ebda8 EFLAGS: 00010246 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9a55cbf8d480 RCX: 0000000000000000 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: ffff9a52b771c200 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000040 R09: 00000000fffffff2 R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffff9a51fa896000 R12: 0000000184010000 R13: 0000000184000000 R14: 0000000000010000 R15: ffff9a55cb66ea08 FS: 00007f15d3830b40(0000) GS:ffff9a55d5600000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 0000561cf39429e0 CR3: 000000084f75f005 CR4: 00000000003626e0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: vfio_remove_dma+0x17/0x70 [vfio_iommu_type1] vfio_iommu_type1_ioctl+0x9e3/0xa7b [vfio_iommu_type1] ksys_ioctl+0x92/0xb0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x4c/0x180 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 RIP: 0033:0x7f15d04c75d7 Code: <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 81 48 2d 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 Fixes: 73fa0d10 ("vfio: Type1 IOMMU implementation") Signed-off-by:
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
-
- 20 Apr, 2020 2 commits
-
-
Yan Zhao authored
add parentheses to avoid possible vaddr overflow. Fixes: a54eb550 ("vfio iommu type1: Add support for mediated devices") Signed-off-by:
Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
-
Yan Zhao authored
instead of calling __copy_to/from_user(), use copy_to_from_user() to ensure vaddr range is a valid user address range before accessing them. Fixes: 8d46c0cc ("vfio: introduce vfio_dma_rw to read/write a range of IOVAs") Signed-off-by:
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reviewed-by:
-
- 19 Apr, 2020 12 commits
-
-
Linus Torvalds authored
-
Brian Geffon authored
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: e346b381 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()") Reported-by:
syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com> Signed-off-by:
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/clk/linuxLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/tipLinus Torvalds authored
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/ext4Linus Torvalds authored
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
-
git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6Linus Torvalds authored
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
-
Linus Torvalds authored
Merge tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of 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 76497732 ("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 ...
-
- 18 Apr, 2020 25 commits
-
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsiLinus Torvalds authored
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
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by: -
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
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 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
-
