| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove GPL boilerplate text (long, short, one-line) and keep the rest,
ie. personal, company or original source copyright statements. Add the
SPDX header.
Unify the include protection macros to match the file names.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
|
|
Al pointed out that we can just toss out the old name on a device and add a
new one arbitrarily, so anybody who uses device->name in printk could
possibly use free'd memory. Instead of adding locking around all of this he
suggested doing it with RCU, so I've introduced a struct rcu_string that
does just that and have gone through and protected all accesses to
device->name that aren't under the uuid_mutex with rcu_read_lock(). This
protects us and I will use it for dealing with removing the device that we
used to mount the file system in a later patch. Thanks,
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
|
