| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
inbound_primed() currently has two code paths - one for QEBSM that knows
how to deal with multiple ACKs, and a non-QEBSM path that strictly
assumes a single ACK on the queue.
In preparation for a subsequent patch, slightly adjust the non-QEBSM
path so that it can manage a queue with multiple ACKs.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Refilling the Input Queue requires additional checks, as the refilled
SBALs can overlap with the ACKs that qdio maintains on the queue.
This code path is way too complex, and does a whole bunch of wrap-around
checks that the modulo arithmetic in sub_buf() takes care of by itself.
So shrink down all that code into a few lines of equivalent
functionality.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
commit 8ebd51a705c5 ("s390/cio: idset.c: remove some unused functions")
left behind this, remove it
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200508140643.30540-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>
[vneethv@linux.ibm.com: Slight modification in the title]
Signed-off-by: Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
commit 657480d9c015 ("s390: support KPROBES_ON_FTRACE")
left behind this, remove it.
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200508140724.11324-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Populate sysfs and structs with reipl entries for nvme ipl type.
This allows specifying a target nvme device when rebooting/reipling.
Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Recognize IPL Block's Ipl Type of "nvme". Populate related structs and sysfs
entries.
Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Clarify the documentation.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
The assignment of the PCI device multifunction attribute
is set during the PCI device probe.
There is no need to set it here.
Let's do it right and remove this assignment.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
s390 uses the UTS_MACHINE defined arch/s390/Makefile as follows:
UTS_MACHINE := s390x
We do not need to pass the fixed string from the command line.
Hard-code user_regset_view::name, like many other architectures do.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200413013113.8529-1-masahiroy@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
buf_in_between() gets passed q->u.in.ack_start as 'bufnr' parameter.
The ack_start always ranges between 0 and QDIO_MAX_BUFFERS_PER_Q - 1,
so the subsequent check will always return true. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Except for some initial thinint-only steps, the processing is identical
to the non-thinint case. So re-use the existing helper.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Knowing how many queues we initially allocated allows us to
1) sanity-check a subsequent qdio_establish() request, and
2) walk the queue arrays without further checks. Apply this while
cleanly splitting qdio_free_queues() into two separate helpers.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
When qdio_allocate_qs() fails, have it deal with its previous
allocations.
This way qdio_allocate() doesn't need to clean up afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Instead of having a catch-all qdio_release_memory() helper, free the
individual allocations from the respective error path.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Wrap the init/exit steps for thinint into a single helper that follows
the established naming scheme.
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Steffen Maier <maier@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
qdio_establish() calls qdio_setup_thinint() via qdio_setup_irq().
If the subsequent qdio_establish_thinint() fails, we miss to put the
DSCI again. Thus the DSCI isn't available for re-use. Given enough of
such errors, we could end up with having only the shared DSCI available.
Merge qdio_setup_thinint() into qdio_establish_thinint(), and deal with
such an error internally.
Fixes: 779e6e1c724d ("[S390] qdio: new qdio driver.")
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
qdio_establish() calls qdio_establish_thinint(), but later has an error
exit path that doesn't roll this call back. Fix it.
Fixes: 779e6e1c724d ("[S390] qdio: new qdio driver.")
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
For rolling back after an error, qdio_establish() calls qdio_shutdown().
If the error occurs early enough, then the qdio_irq's state still is
QDIO_IRQ_STATE_INACTIVE and qdio_shutdown() does nothing.
But at _any_ point where qdio_establish() bails out in this way,
qdio_setup_irq() will have already replaced the IRQ handler. This then
won't be restored after an early error, and the device can end up being
returned to the device driver with qdio's IRQ handler still installed.
Slightly reorder qdio_setup_irq() so we can be 100% sure that the IRQ
handler was replaced. Then fix the bug in qdio_establish() by calling a
helper that rolls back only the IRQ handler modification.
Also use the new helper in qdio_shutdown() to keep things in sync, and
slightly clean up the locking while doing so.
This makes minor semantical changes, but holding setup_mutex gives us
sufficient leeway to eg. pull qdio_shutdown_thinint() outside of the
ccwdev lock's scope.
Fixes: 779e6e1c724d ("[S390] qdio: new qdio driver.")
Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
There are changes in the usage of PCI for the user:
- new kernel parameter
- modification of the way functions are enumerated
Let's document these.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
The Physical function should not be disabled until no virtual
functions depends on it.
Let's force the user to first use echo 0 > sriov_numfs before
allowing to disable the PF with echo 0 > power.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
We allow multiple functions on a single bus.
We suppress the ZPCI_DEVFN definition and replace its
occurences with zpci->devfn.
We verify the number of device during the registration.
There can never be more domains in use than existing
devices, so we do not need to verify the count of domain
after having verified the count of devices.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
The current PCI implementation do not provide a bus resource.
This leads to a notice being print at boot.
Let's do it more nicely and provide the bus resource.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Simplify the event handling.
Set the zpci state explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
The zPCI bus is in charge to handle common zPCI resources for
zPCI devices.
Creating the zPCI bus, the PCI bus, the zPCI devices and the
PCI devices and hotplug slots
done in a specific order:
- PCI hotplug slot creation needs a PCI bus
- PCI bus needs a PCI domain
which is reported by the pci_domain_nr() when setting up the
host bridge
- PCI domain is set from the zPCI with devfn 0
this is necessary to have a reproducible enumeration
Therefore we can not create devices or hotplug slots for any PCI
device associated with a zPCI device before having discovered
the function zero of the bus.
The discovery and initialization of devices can be done at several
points in the code:
- On Events, serialized in a thread context
- On initialization, in the kernel init thread context
- When powering on the hotplug slot, in a user thread context
The removal of devices and their parent bus may also be done on
events or for devices when powering down the slot.
To guarantee the existence of the bus and devices until they are
no more needed we use kref in zPCI bus and introduce a reference
count in the zPCI devices.
In this patch the zPCI bus still only accept a device with
a devfn 0.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Firmware provides the bus/devfn part of the PCI addresses of a zPCI
function inside the new field RID of the CLP query PCI function
with a bit to know if this field is available to use.
Let's add these fields to the clp_rsp_query_pci structure,
add corresponding fields to zdev and initialize them.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Using PCI multifunctions in S390 is a new feature we may want
to ignore to continue provide the same topology as in the past
to userland even if the configuration supports exposing the
topology of a multi-Function device.
A new boolean parameters allows to overwrite the kernel
pci configuration:
- pci=norid when on, disallow the use a new firmware field,
RID, which provides the PCI <bus>:<device>.<function> part
of the PCI address.
To be used in the following patches and satisfy the checkpatch.pl
the variable is exposed in pci.h
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
In the future the bus sysdata may not directly point to the
zpci_dev.
In preparation of upcoming patches let us abstract the
access to the zpci_dev from the device inside the pci device.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
Add SysFS attribute that provides the port number for PCI functions
representing a single port of a multi-port device.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Schmidt <alexs@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
