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:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:01:21 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Jitendra <jkhasdev@gmail.com>
Cc:     devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: fix array of flexible structures
Message-ID: <YIj6MUO5+EDBzOwl@kroah.com>
References: <20210427174945.1323-1-jkhasdev@gmail.com>
 <YIhTjGpmLSYKuCi3@kroah.com>
 <20210427185844.GA1030@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210427185844.GA1030@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:28:44AM +0530, Jitendra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 08:10:20PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:19:45PM +0530, Jitendra Khasdev wrote:
> > > This patch fixes sparse warning "array of flexible structures"
> > > for rtllib.h.
> > > 
> > > eg. drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h:832:48: warning: array of
> > > flexible structures
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jitendra Khasdev <jkhasdev@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h | 10 +++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h
> > > index 4cabaf2..c7cb318 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib.h
> > > @@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ struct rtllib_authentication {
> > >  	__le16 transaction;
> > >  	__le16 status;
> > >  	/*challenge*/
> > > -	struct rtllib_info_element info_element[];
> > > +	struct rtllib_info_element *info_element;
> > 
> > You just changed the definition of this structure, and the other
> > structures here.  Are you sure this is working properly?
> > 
> 
> I have compiled the driver and install it on my vm, but I don't this specific
> hardware, so couldn't test it.
> 
> I fixed in context of sparse.

Please verify that this change is correct by looking at how the
structures are being created (i.e. is this being treated as a flexible
array or a pointer?)

I think we have been through this before and that sparse is not right,
but I can't remember...

thanks,

greg k-h