Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y5mMWEtHWKOiPVU+@mail.google.com> <Y5mQTOqFOGbJMerV@mail.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y5mQTOqFOGbJMerV@mail.google.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 12:43:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd914H7swqqqydSLYOJh-4=+rWNCUdqizaQQxmVtpiMSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array
 with flex-array member
To:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Ilpo_J=C3=A4rvinen?= <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Haowen Bai <baihaowen@meizu.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 10:58 AM Paulo Miguel Almeida
<paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One-element arrays are deprecated, and we are replacing them with
> flexible array members instead. So, replace one-element array with
> flexible-array member in struct RXBUF. No changes were required
> within the source code because of the existing padding in RXBUF struct

You shouldn't rely on padding. Make you change robust independently on
the padding. See also below.

> It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch
> results in no binary output differences.

This is interesting...

> This helps with the ongoing efforts to tighten the FORTIFY_SOURCE
> routines on memcpy() and help us make progress towards globally
> enabling -fstrict-flex-arrays=3 [1].
>
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
> Link: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 [1]

>

The blank lines are not allowed in the tag block (in case you want to
have Link: to be recognized as a tag).

> Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
>
> - v2: removed changes to how the size of RXBUF was calculated. I
>   changed my mind after thinking about the existing padding in the
>   struct. Happy to discuss it if anyone sees it differently.

I feel worried about in particular this code:

/* each buffer has header and data */
info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size;

which means that entire rx_alloc_buffers() should be revisited. Also
take into account the use of one or more macros from overflow.h for
memory allocation.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko