Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:14:35 +1300 | From | Paulo Miguel Almeida <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [next] pcmcia: synclink_cs: replace 1-element array with flex-array member |
| |
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:29:37AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:42:00PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida 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 and refactor the rest of the code > > accordingly. > > > > It's worth mentioning that doing a build before/after this patch > > results in no binary output differences. > > > > 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] > > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c > > index b2735be81ab2..1ab2d552f498 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c > > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static MGSL_PARAMS default_params = { > > typedef struct { > > int count; > > unsigned char status; > > - char data[1]; > > + char data[]; > > } RXBUF; > > > > /* The queue of BH actions to be performed */ > > @@ -2611,7 +2611,8 @@ static int mgslpc_proc_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > > static int rx_alloc_buffers(MGSLPC_INFO *info) > > { > > /* each buffer has header and data */ > > - info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size; > > + info->rx_buf_size = max(offsetof(typeof(RXBUF), data) + 1, sizeof(RXBUF)) > > + + info->max_frame_size; > > It seems like there is an existing size bug here, and likely should be > fixed separately? > > i.e. this was already allocating 1 byte "too much". I'd expect this > first: > > - info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size; > + info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size; > > and then the next patch: > > - char data[1]; > + char data[]; > ... > - info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) - 1 + info->max_frame_size; > + info->rx_buf_size = sizeof(RXBUF) + info->max_frame_size; > > The above would induce a binary output change, and the second would not. > > Though this results in what you had for the v2 patch (but I can't > believe it had no binary changes...) > > -- > Kees Cook
Just realised that you made a comment on PATCH v1 and Andy made a comment on PATCH v2. Please conside my answer for PATCH v2 as I have abandoned the v1. Apologies for the confusion.
thanks!
- Paulo A.
|  |