There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>

Pull SafeSetID update from Micah Morton:
 "Add additional LSM hooks for SafeSetID

  SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
  on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
  calls.

  The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make it in
  for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for v5.8
  since we have it ready.

  We are planning on the rest of the work for extending the SafeSetID
  LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge window"

* tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux:
  security: Add LSM hooks to set*gid syscalls

The SafeSetID LSM uses the security_task_fix_setuid hook to filter
set*uid() syscalls according to its configured security policy. In
preparation for adding analagous support in the LSM for set*gid()
syscalls, we add the requisite hook here. Tested by putting print
statements in the security_task_fix_setgid hook and seeing them get hit
during kernel boot.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Cedeno <thomascedeno@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>

Pull btrfs updates from David Sterba:
 "This reverts the direct io port to iomap infrastructure of btrfs
  merged in the first pull request. We found problems in invalidate page
  that don't seem to be fixable as regressions or without changing iomap
  code that would not affect other filesystems.

  There are four reverts in total, but three of them are followup
  cleanups needed to revert a43a67a2 cleanly. The result is the
  buffer head based implementation of direct io.

  Reverts are not great, but under current circumstances I don't see
  better options"

* tag 'for-5.8-part2-tag' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux:
  Revert "btrfs: switch to iomap_dio_rw() for dio"
  Revert "fs: remove dio_end_io()"
  Revert "btrfs: remove BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK"
  Revert "btrfs: split btrfs_direct_IO to read and write part"

Pull networking fixes from David Miller:

 1) Fix cfg80211 deadlock, from Johannes Berg.

 2) RXRPC fails to send norigications, from David Howells.

 3) MPTCP RM_ADDR parsing has an off by one pointer error, fix from
    Geliang Tang.

 4) Fix crash when using MSG_PEEK with sockmap, from Anny Hu.

 5) The ucc_geth driver needs __netdev_watchdog_up exported, from
    Valentin Longchamp.

 6) Fix hashtable memory leak in dccp, from Wang Hai.

 7) Fix how nexthops are marked as FDB nexthops, from David Ahern.

 8) Fix mptcp races between shutdown and recvmsg, from Paolo Abeni.

 9) Fix crashes in tipc_disc_rcv(), from Tuong Lien.

10) Fix link speed reporting in iavf driver, from Brett Creeley.

11) When a channel is used for XSK and then reused again later for XSK,
    we forget to clear out the relevant data structures in mlx5 which
    causes all kinds of problems. Fix from Maxim Mikityanskiy.

12) Fix memory leak in genetlink, from Cong Wang.

13) Disallow sockmap attachments to UDP sockets, it simply won't work.
    From Lorenz Bauer.

* git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net: (83 commits)
  net: ethernet: ti: ale: fix allmulti for nu type ale
  net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw-nuss: fix ale parameters init
  net: atm: Remove the error message according to the atomic context
  bpf: Undo internal BPF_PROBE_MEM in BPF insns dump
  libbpf: Support pre-initializing .bss global variables
  tools/bpftool: Fix skeleton codegen
  bpf: Fix memlock accounting for sock_hash
  bpf: sockmap: Don't attach programs to UDP sockets
  bpf: tcp: Recv() should return 0 when the peer socket is closed
  ibmvnic: Flush existing work items before device removal
  genetlink: clean up family attributes allocations
  net: ipa: header pad field only valid for AP->modem endpoint
  net: ipa: program upper nibbles of sequencer type
  net: ipa: fix modem LAN RX endpoint id
  net: ipa: program metadata mask differently
  ionic: add pcie_print_link_status
  rxrpc: Fix race between incoming ACK parser and retransmitter
  net/mlx5: E-Switch, Fix some error pointer dereferences
  net/mlx5: Don't fail driver on failure to create debugfs
  net/mlx5e: CT: Fix ipv6 nat header rewrite actions
  ...

This reverts commit a43a67a2.

This patch reverts the main part of switching direct io implementation
to iomap infrastructure. There's a problem in invalidate page that
couldn't be solved as regression in this development cycle.

The problem occurs when buffered and direct io are mixed, and the ranges
overlap. Although this is not recommended, filesystems implement
measures or fallbacks to make it somehow work. In this case, fallback to
buffered IO would be an option for btrfs (this already happens when
direct io is done on compressed data), but the change would be needed in
the iomap code, bringing new semantics to other filesystems.

Another problem arises when again the buffered and direct ios are mixed,
invalidation fails, then -EIO is set on the mapping and fsync will fail,
though there's no real error.

There have been discussions how to fix that, but revert seems to be the
least intrusive option.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200528192103.xm45qoxqmkw7i5yl@fiona/Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>