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]
Lastly, fix the following checkpatch warning:
WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned long' over 'unsigned long int' as the int is unnecessary
+ unsigned long int cpumask[];
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]>
---
drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c b/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
index cd1270614cc6..e9bbd3c42eef 100644
--- a/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
+++ b/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct idle_inject_device {
struct hrtimer timer;
unsigned int idle_duration_us;
unsigned int run_duration_us;
- unsigned long int cpumask[0];
+ unsigned long cpumask[];
};
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct idle_inject_thread, idle_inject_thread);
--
2.25.0
On Thursday, February 27, 2020 8:07:21 PM CET Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> 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]
>
> Lastly, fix the following checkpatch warning:
> WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned long' over 'unsigned long int' as the int is unnecessary
> + unsigned long int cpumask[];
>
> 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]>
> ---
> drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c b/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
> index cd1270614cc6..e9bbd3c42eef 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct idle_inject_device {
> struct hrtimer timer;
> unsigned int idle_duration_us;
> unsigned int run_duration_us;
> - unsigned long int cpumask[0];
> + unsigned long cpumask[];
> };
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct idle_inject_thread, idle_inject_thread);
>
Applied as 5.7 material, thanks!