diff options
author | Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com> | 2020-02-20 07:59:14 -0600 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org> | 2020-09-20 12:26:15 +0200 |
commit | b62e1ef34c18c1734593b81de481021f8fbb866e (patch) | |
tree | 9a1b14d5701511561c2f46ea7d7b957d31e6d4f5 /tests/hash:net6,port.t.list1 | |
parent | cc93f943de61ea552884c6b0ab2510136c4ac8f2 (diff) |
netfilter: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member
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]
Lastly, fix checkpatch.pl warning
WARNING: __aligned(size) is preferred over __attribute__((aligned(size)))
in net/bridge/netfilter/ebtables.c
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>
Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Signed-off-by: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@netfilter.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'tests/hash:net6,port.t.list1')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions