IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=bYOZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'afs-fixes-20200616' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs
Pull AFS fixes from David Howells:
"I've managed to get xfstests kind of working with afs. Here are a set
of patches that fix most of the bugs found.
There are a number of primary issues:
- Incorrect handling of mtime and non-handling of ctime. It might be
argued, that the latter isn't a bug since the AFS protocol doesn't
support ctime, but I should probably still update it locally.
- Shared-write mmap, truncate and writeback bugs. This includes not
changing i_size under the callback lock, overwriting local i_size
with the reply from the server after a partial writeback, not
limiting the writeback from an mmapped page to EOF.
- Checks for an abort code indicating that the primary vnode in an
operation was deleted by a third-party are done in the wrong place.
- Silly rename bugs. This includes an incomplete conversion to the
new operation handling, duplicate nlink handling, nlink changing
not being done inside the callback lock and insufficient handling
of third-party conflicting directory changes.
And some secondary ones:
- The UAEOVERFLOW abort code should map to EOVERFLOW not EREMOTEIO.
- Remove a couple of unused or incompletely used bits.
- Remove a couple of redundant success checks.
These seem to fix all the data-corruption bugs found by
./check -afs -g quick
along with the obvious silly rename bugs and time bugs.
There are still some test failures, but they seem to fall into two
classes: firstly, the authentication/security model is different to
the standard UNIX model and permission is arbitrated by the server and
cached locally; and secondly, there are a number of features that AFS
does not support (such as mknod). But in these cases, the tests
themselves need to be adapted or skipped.
Using the in-kernel afs client with xfstests also found a bug in the
AuriStor AFS server that has been fixed for a future release"
* tag 'afs-fixes-20200616' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs:
afs: Fix silly rename
afs: afs_vnode_commit_status() doesn't need to check the RPC error
afs: Fix use of afs_check_for_remote_deletion()
afs: Remove afs_operation::abort_code
afs: Fix yfs_fs_fetch_status() to honour vnode selector
afs: Remove yfs_fs_fetch_file_status() as it's not used
afs: Fix the mapping of the UAEOVERFLOW abort code
afs: Fix truncation issues and mmap writeback size
afs: Concoct ctimes
afs: Fix EOF corruption
afs: afs_write_end() should change i_size under the right lock
afs: Fix non-setting of mtime when writing into mmap
Hi Linus,
Please, pull the following patches that replace zero-length arrays with
flexible-array members.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
two development cycles now.
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
C99 introduced “flexible array members”, which lacks a numeric size for the
array declaration entirely:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
This is the way the kernel expects dynamically sized trailing elements to be
declared. It allows the compiler to generate errors when the flexible array
does not occur last in the structure, which helps to prevent some kind of
undefined behavior[3] bugs from being inadvertently introduced to the codebase.
It also allows the compiler to correctly analyze array sizes (via sizeof(),
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS). For instance, there is no
mechanism that warns us that the following application of the sizeof() operator
to a zero-length array always results in zero:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[0];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
At the last line of code above, size turns out to be zero, when one might have
thought it represents the total size in bytes of the dynamic memory recently
allocated for the trailing array items. Here are a couple examples of this
issue[4][5]. Instead, flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the
sizeof() operator may not be applied[6], so any misuse of such operators will
be immediately noticed at build time.
The cleanest and least error-prone way to implement this is through the use of
a flexible array member:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items[0]) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
Thanks
--
Gustavo
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] https://git.kernel.org/linus/76497732932f15e7323dc805e8ea8dc11bb587cf
[4] https://git.kernel.org/linus/f2cd32a443da694ac4e28fbf4ac6f9d5cc63a539
[5] https://git.kernel.org/linus/ab91c2a89f86be2898cee208d492816ec238b2cf
[6] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=8HUQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'flex-array-conversions-5.8-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux
Pull flexible-array member conversions from Gustavo A. R. Silva:
"Replace zero-length arrays with flexible-array members.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
two development cycles now.
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare
having a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure.
Kernel code should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these
cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no
longer be used[2].
C99 introduced “flexible array members”, which lacks a numeric size
for the array declaration entirely:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
This is the way the kernel expects dynamically sized trailing elements
to be declared. It allows the compiler to generate errors when the
flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which helps to
prevent some kind of undefined behavior[3] bugs from being
inadvertently introduced to the codebase.
It also allows the compiler to correctly analyze array sizes (via
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS). For
instance, there is no mechanism that warns us that the following
application of the sizeof() operator to a zero-length array always
results in zero:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[0];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
At the last line of code above, size turns out to be zero, when one
might have thought it represents the total size in bytes of the
dynamic memory recently allocated for the trailing array items. Here
are a couple examples of this issue[4][5].
Instead, flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the
sizeof() operator may not be applied[6], so any misuse of such
operators will be immediately noticed at build time.
The cleanest and least error-prone way to implement this is through
the use of a flexible array member:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items[0]) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
instead"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
[4] commit f2cd32a443da ("rndis_wlan: Remove logically dead code")
[5] commit ab91c2a89f86 ("tpm: eventlog: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
[6] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
* tag 'flex-array-conversions-5.8-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (41 commits)
w1: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tracing/probe: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
soc: ti: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tifm: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
dmaengine: tegra-apb: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
stm class: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
Squashfs: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
ASoC: SOF: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
ima: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
sctp: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
phy: samsung: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
RxRPC: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
rapidio: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
media: pwc: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
firmware: pcdp: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
oprofile: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
block: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tools/testing/nvdimm: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
libata: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
kprobes: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
...
The purgatory Makefile removes -fstack-protector options if they were
configured in, but does not currently add -fno-stack-protector.
If gcc was configured with the --enable-default-ssp configure option,
this results in the stack protector still being enabled for the
purgatory (absent distro-specific specs files that might disable it
again for freestanding compilations), if the main kernel is being
compiled with stack protection enabled (if it's disabled for the main
kernel, the top-level Makefile will add -fno-stack-protector).
This will break the build since commit
e4160b2e4b02 ("x86/purgatory: Fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols")
and prior to that would have caused runtime failure when trying to use
kexec.
Explicitly add -fno-stack-protector to avoid this, as done in other
Makefiles that need to disable the stack protector.
Reported-by: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Fix AFS's silly rename by the following means:
(1) Set the destination directory in afs_do_silly_rename() so as to avoid
misbehaviour and indicate that the directory data version will
increment by 1 so as to avoid warnings about unexpected changes in the
DV. Also indicate that the ctime should be updated to avoid xfstest
grumbling.
(2) Note when the server indicates that a directory changed more than we
expected (AFS_OPERATION_DIR_CONFLICT), indicating a conflict with a
third party change, checking on successful completion of unlink and
rename.
The problem is that the FS.RemoveFile RPC op doesn't report the status
of the unlinked file, though YFS.RemoveFile2 does. This can be
mitigated by the assumption that if the directory DV cranked by
exactly 1, we can be sure we removed one link from the file; further,
ordinarily in AFS, files cannot be hardlinked across directories, so
if we reduce nlink to 0, the file is deleted.
However, if the directory DV jumps by more than 1, we cannot know if a
third party intervened by adding or removing a link on the file we
just removed a link from.
The same also goes for any vnode that is at the destination of the
FS.Rename RPC op.
(3) Make afs_vnode_commit_status() apply the nlink drop inside the cb_lock
section along with the other attribute updates if ->op_unlinked is set
on the descriptor for the appropriate vnode.
(4) Issue a follow up status fetch to the unlinked file in the event of a
third party conflict that makes it impossible for us to know if we
actually deleted the file or not.
(5) Provide a flag, AFS_VNODE_SILLY_DELETED, to make afs_getattr() lie to
the user about the nlink of a silly deleted file so that it appears as
0, not 1.
Found with the generic/035 and generic/084 xfstests.
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Reported-by: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
afs_vnode_commit_status() is only ever called if op->error is 0, so remove
the op->error checks from the function.
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
afs_check_for_remote_deletion() checks to see if error ENOENT is returned
by the server in response to an operation and, if so, marks the primary
vnode as having been deleted as the FID is no longer valid.
However, it's being called from the operation success functions, where no
abort has happened - and if an inline abort is recorded, it's handled by
afs_vnode_commit_status().
Fix this by actually calling the operation aborted method if provided and
having that point to afs_check_for_remote_deletion().
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Fix yfs_fs_fetch_status() to honour the vnode selector in
op->fetch_status.which as does afs_fs_fetch_status() that allows
afs_do_lookup() to use this as an alternative to the InlineBulkStatus RPC
call if not implemented by the server.
This doesn't matter in the current code as YFS servers always implement
InlineBulkStatus, but a subsequent will call it on YFS servers too in some
circumstances.
Fixes: e49c7b2f6de7 ("afs: Build an abstraction around an "operation" concept")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
