Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 10 May 2020 23:48:29 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Jeremy Sowden <jeremy@azazel.net>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>,
        Dirk Morris <dmorris@metaloft.com>,
        netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] netfilter: conntrack: avoid gcc-10
 zero-length-bounds warning
Message-ID: <20200510214829.GA9032@salvia>
References: <20200430213101.135134-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20200430213101.135134-7-arnd@arndb.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200430213101.135134-7-arnd@arndb.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 11:30:48PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> gcc-10 warns around a suspicious access to an empty struct member:
> 
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c: In function '__nf_conntrack_alloc':
> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:1522:9: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[0]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
>  1522 |  memset(&ct->__nfct_init_offset[0], 0,
>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In file included from net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c:37:
> include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h:90:5: note: while referencing '__nfct_init_offset'
>    90 |  u8 __nfct_init_offset[0];
>       |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> The code is correct but a bit unusual. Rework it slightly in a way that
> does not trigger the warning, using an empty struct instead of an empty
> array. There are probably more elegant ways to do this, but this is the
> smallest change.

Applied, thanks.