| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd
Pull MFD fix from Lee Jones:
"Fix NULL pointer dereference in mt6360 driver"
* tag 'mfd-fixes-5.8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd:
mfd: mt6360: Fix register driver NULL pointer by adding driver name
|
|
The driver name was accidentally removed when .probe() by was replaced
by .probe_new() during an early patch review.
[ 121.243012] EAX: c2a8bc64 EBX: 00000000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[ 121.243012] ESI: c2a8bc79 EDI: 00000000 EBP: e54bdea8 ESP: e54bdea0
[ 121.243012] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010286
[ 121.243012] CR0: 80050033 CR2: 00000000 CR3: 02ec3000 CR4: 000006b0
[ 121.243012] Call Trace:
[ 121.243012] kset_find_obj+0x3d/0xc0
[ 121.243012] driver_find+0x16/0x40
[ 121.243012] driver_register+0x49/0x100
[ 121.243012] ? i2c_for_each_dev+0x39/0x50
[ 121.243012] ? __process_new_adapter+0x20/0x20
[ 121.243012] ? cht_wc_driver_init+0x11/0x11
[ 121.243012] i2c_register_driver+0x30/0x80
[ 121.243012] ? intel_lpss_pci_driver_init+0x16/0x16
[ 121.243012] mt6360_pmu_driver_init+0xf/0x11
[ 121.243012] do_one_initcall+0x33/0x1a0
[ 121.243012] ? parse_args+0x1eb/0x3d0
[ 121.243012] ? __might_sleep+0x31/0x90
[ 121.243012] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x10a/0x17f
[ 121.243012] kernel_init_freeable+0x12c/0x17f
[ 121.243012] ? rest_init+0x110/0x110
[ 121.243012] kernel_init+0xb/0x100
[ 121.243012] ? schedule_tail_wrapper+0x9/0xc
[ 121.243012] ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
[ 121.243012] Modules linked in:
[ 121.243012] CR2: 0000000000000000
[ 121.243012] random: get_random_bytes called from init_oops_id+0x3a/0x40 with crng_init=0
[ 121.243012] ---[ end trace 38a803400f1a2bee ]---
[ 121.243012] EIP: strcmp+0x11/0x30
Fixes: 7edd363421dab ("mfd: Add support for PMIC MT6360")
Signed-off-by: Gene Chen <gene_chen@richtek.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@kernel.org>
[Lee: Taking the opportunity to fix the compatible string too 's/_/-/']
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.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>
|
|
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
member
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
When a user tries to parse a symbol located inside a module he must have
modpath set. Otherwise, decode_stacktrace won't be able to parse the
symbol correctly.
Right now the failure is silent and easily missed by the user. What's
worse is that by the time the user realizes what happened (or someone on
LKML asks him to add the modpath and re-run), he might have already got
rid of the vmlinux/modules.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4
Pull more ext4 updates from Ted Ts'o:
"This is the second round of ext4 commits for 5.8 merge window [1].
It includes the per-inode DAX support, which was dependant on the DAX
infrastructure which came in via the XFS tree, and a number of
regression and bug fixes; most notably the "BUG: using
smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in ext4_mb_new_blocks" reported
by syzkaller"
[1] The pull request actually came in 15 minutes after I had tagged the
rc1 release. Tssk, tssk, late.. - Linus
* tag 'ext4-for-linus-5.8-rc1-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4:
ext4, jbd2: ensure panic by fix a race between jbd2 abort and ext4 error handlers
ext4: support xattr gnu.* namespace for the Hurd
ext4: mballoc: Use this_cpu_read instead of this_cpu_ptr
ext4: avoid utf8_strncasecmp() with unstable name
ext4: stop overwrite the errcode in ext4_setup_super
ext4: fix partial cluster initialization when splitting extent
ext4: avoid race conditions when remounting with options that change dax
Documentation/dax: Update DAX enablement for ext4
fs/ext4: Introduce DAX inode flag
fs/ext4: Remove jflag variable
fs/ext4: Make DAX mount option a tri-state
fs/ext4: Only change S_DAX on inode load
fs/ext4: Update ext4_should_use_dax()
fs/ext4: Change EXT4_MOUNT_DAX to EXT4_MOUNT_DAX_ALWAYS
fs/ext4: Disallow verity if inode is DAX
fs/ext4: Narrow scope of DAX check in setflags
|
|
|
|
git://github.com/micah-morton/linux
Pull SafeSetID update from Micah Morton:
"Add additional LSM hooks for SafeSetID
SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
calls.
The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make it in
for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for v5.8
since we have it ready.
We are planning on the rest of the work for extending the SafeSetID
LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge window"
* tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux:
security: Add LSM hooks to set*gid syscalls
|
|
The SafeSetID LSM uses the security_task_fix_setuid hook to filter
set*uid() syscalls according to its configured security policy. In
preparation for adding analagous support in the LSM for set*gid()
syscalls, we add the requisite hook here. Tested by putting print
statements in the security_task_fix_setgid hook and seeing them get hit
during kernel boot.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Cedeno <thomascedeno@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
|
