- Apr 20, 2020
-
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull time namespace fix from Thomas Gleixner: "An update for the proc interface of time namespaces: Use symbolic names instead of clockid numbers. The usability nuisance of numbers was noticed by Michael when polishing the man page" * tag 'timers-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: proc, time/namespace: Show clock symbolic names in /proc/pid/timens_offsets
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull perf tooling fixes and updates from Thomas Gleixner: - Fix the header line of perf stat output for '--metric-only --per-socket' - Fix the python build with clang - The usual tools UAPI header synchronization * tag 'perf-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: tools headers: Synchronize linux/bits.h with the kernel sources tools headers: Adopt verbatim copy of compiletime_assert() from kernel sources tools headers: Update x86's syscall_64.tbl with the kernel sources tools headers UAPI: Sync drm/i915_drm.h with the kernel sources tools headers UAPI: Update tools's copy of drm.h headers tools headers kvm: Sync linux/kvm.h with the kernel sources tools headers UAPI: Sync linux/fscrypt.h with the kernel sources tools include UAPI: Sync linux/vhost.h with the kernel sources tools arch x86: Sync asm/cpufeatures.h with the kernel sources tools headers UAPI: Sync linux/mman.h with the kernel tools headers UAPI: Sync sched.h with the kernel tools headers: Update linux/vdso.h and grab a copy of vdso/const.h perf stat: Fix no metric header if --per-socket and --metric-only set perf python: Check if clang supports -fno-semantic-interposition tools arch x86: Sync the msr-index.h copy with the kernel sources
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull irq fixes from Thomas Gleixner: "A set of fixes/updates for the interrupt subsystem: - Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq(). All users have been converted so remove them before new users surface. - A set of bugfixes for various interrupt chip drivers - Add a few missing static attributes to address sparse warnings" * tag 'irq-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Make bcm7038_l1_of_init() static irqchip/irq-mvebu-icu: Make legacy_bindings static irqchip/meson-gpio: Fix HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order irqchip/sifive-plic: Fix maximum priority threshold value irqchip/ti-sci-inta: Fix processing of masked irqs irqchip/mbigen: Free msi_desc on device teardown irqchip/gic-v4.1: Update effective affinity of virtual SGIs irqchip/gic-v4.1: Add support for VPENDBASER's Dirty+Valid signaling genirq: Remove setup_irq() and remove_irq()
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull scheduler fixes from Thomas Gleixner: "Two fixes for the scheduler: - Work around an uninitialized variable warning where GCC can't figure it out. - Allow 'isolcpus=' to skip unknown subparameters so that older kernels work with the commandline of a newer kernel. Improve the error output while at it" * tag 'sched-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: sched/vtime: Work around an unitialized variable warning sched/isolation: Allow "isolcpus=" to skip unknown sub-parameters
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tipLinus Torvalds authored
Pull RCU fix from Thomas Gleixner: "A single bugfix for RCU to prevent taking a lock in NMI context" * tag 'core-urgent-2020-04-19' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip: rcu: Don't acquire lock in NMI handler in rcu_nmi_enter_common()
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4Linus Torvalds authored
Pull ext4 fixes from Ted Ts'o: "Miscellaneous bug fixes and cleanups for ext4, including a fix for generic/388 in data=journal mode, removing some BUG_ON's, and cleaning up some compiler warnings" * tag 'ext4_for_linus_stable' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4: ext4: convert BUG_ON's to WARN_ON's in mballoc.c ext4: increase wait time needed before reuse of deleted inode numbers ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es' in ext4_jbd2.c ext4: remove set but not used variable 'es' ext4: do not zeroout extents beyond i_disksize ext4: fix return-value types in several function comments ext4: use non-movable memory for superblock readahead ext4: use matching invalidatepage in ext4_writepage
-
git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6Linus Torvalds authored
Pull cifs fixes from Steve French: "Three small smb3 fixes: two debug related (helping network tracing for SMB2 mounts, and the other removing an unintended debug line on signing failures), and one fixing a performance problem with 64K pages" * tag '5.7-rc-smb3-fixes' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6: smb3: remove overly noisy debug line in signing errors cifs: improve read performance for page size 64KB & cache=strict & vers=2.1+ cifs: dump the session id and keys also for SMB2 sessions
-
Linus Torvalds authored
Merge tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux Pull flexible-array member conversion from Gustavo Silva: "The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances may be hiding some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member convertions) will also help to get completely rid of those sorts of issues. Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for quite a while now and, 238 more of these patches have already been merged into 5.7-rc1. There are a couple hundred more of these issues waiting to be addressed in the whole codebase" [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") * tag 'flexible-array-member-5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (28 commits) xattr.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member uapi: linux: fiemap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member uapi: linux: dlm_device.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member tpm_eventlog.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member ti_wilink_st.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member swap.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member skbuff.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member sched: topology.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member rslib.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member rio.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member posix_acl.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member platform_data: wilco-ec.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member memcontrol.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member list_lru.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member lib: cpu_rmap: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member irq.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member ihex.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member igmp.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member genalloc.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member ethtool.h: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member ...
-
- Apr 19, 2020
-
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsiLinus Torvalds authored
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley: "Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata" * tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi: scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva authored
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2], introduced in C99: struct foo { int stuff; struct boo array[]; }; By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on. Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by this change: "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1] This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21 [3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour") Signed-off-by:
Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
-
Linus Torvalds authored
Merge tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging Pull hwmon fixes from Guenter Roeck: - Fix up chip IDs (isl68137) - error handling for invalid temperatures and use true module name (drivetemp) - Fix static symbol warnings (k10temp) - Use valid hwmon device name (jc42) * tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging: hwmon: (jc42) Fix name to have no illegal characters hwmon: (k10temp) make some symbols static hwmon: (drivetemp) Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures hwmon: (drivetemp) Use drivetemp's true module name in Kconfig section hwmon: (pmbus/isl68137) Fix up chip IDs
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linuxLinus Torvalds authored
Pull xfs fixes from Darrick Wong: "The three commits here fix some livelocks and other clashes with fsfreeze, a potential corruption problem, and a minor race between processes freeing and allocating space when the filesystem is near ENOSPC. Summary: - Fix a partially uninitialized variable. - Teach the background gc threads to apply for fsfreeze protection. - Fix some scaling problems when multiple threads try to flush the filesystem when we're about to hit ENOSPC" * tag 'xfs-5.7-fixes-3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux: xfs: move inode flush to the sync workqueue xfs: fix partially uninitialized structure in xfs_reflink_remap_extent xfs: acquire superblock freeze protection on eofblocks scans
-
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linuxLinus Torvalds authored
Pull thread fixes from Christian Brauner: "A few fixes and minor improvements: - Correctly validate the cgroup file descriptor when clone3() is used with CLONE_INTO_CGROUP. - Check that a new enough version of struct clone_args is passed which supports the cgroup file descriptor argument when CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set in the flags argument. - Catch nonsensical struct clone_args layouts at build time. - Catch extensions of struct clone_args without updating the uapi visible size definitions at build time. - Check whether the signal is valid early in kill_pid_usb_asyncio() before doing further work. - Replace open-coded rcu_read_lock()+kill_pid_info()+rcu_read_unlock() sequence in kill_something_info() with kill_proc_info() which is a dedicated helper to do just that" * tag 'for-linus-2020-04-18' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux: clone3: add build-time CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER* validity checks clone3: add a check for the user struct size if CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set clone3: fix cgroup argument sanity check signal: use kill_proc_info instead of kill_pid_info in kill_something_info signal: check sig before setting info in kill_pid_usb_asyncio
-