include: drop pointless __compiler_offsetof indirection

(1) compiler_types.h is unconditionally included via an -include flag
(see scripts/Makefile.lib), and it defines __compiler_offsetof
u

include: drop pointless __compiler_offsetof indirection

(1) compiler_types.h is unconditionally included via an -include flag
(see scripts/Makefile.lib), and it defines __compiler_offsetof
unconditionally. So testing for definedness of __compiler_offsetof is
mostly pointless.

(2) Every relevant compiler provides __builtin_offsetof (even sparse
has had that for 14 years), and if for whatever reason one would end
up picking up the poor man's fallback definition (C file compiler with
completely custom CFLAGS?), newer clang versions won't treat the
result as an Integer Constant Expression, so if used in place where
such is required (static initializer or static_assert), one would get
errors like

t.c:11:16: error: static_assert expression is not an integral constant expression
t.c:11:16: note: cast that performs the conversions of a reinterpret_cast is not allowed in a constant expression
t.c:4:33: note: expanded from macro 'offsetof'
#define offsetof(TYPE, MEMBER) ((size_t)&((TYPE *)0)->MEMBER)

So just define offsetof unconditionally and directly in terms of
__builtin_offsetof.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220202102147.326672-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexib

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the r

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

show more ...

stddef: Fix kerndoc for sizeof_field() and offsetofend()

Adjust the comment styles so these are correctly identified as valid
kern-doc.

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually wh

stddef: Introduce struct_group() helper macro

[ Upstream commit 50d7bd38c3aafc4749e05e8d7fcb616979143602 ]

Kernel code has a regular need to describe groups of members within a
structure usually when they need to be copied or initialized separately
from the rest of the surrounding structure. The generally accepted design
pattern in C is to use a named sub-struct:

struct foo {
int one;
struct {
int two;
int three, four;
} thing;
int five;
};

This would allow for traditional references and sizing:

memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, sizeof(dst.thing));

However, doing this would mean that referencing struct members enclosed
by such named structs would always require including the sub-struct name
in identifiers:

do_something(dst.thing.three);

This has tended to be quite inflexible, especially when such groupings
need to be added to established code which causes huge naming churn.
Three workarounds exist in the kernel for this problem, and each have
other negative properties.

To avoid the naming churn, there is a design pattern of adding macro
aliases for the named struct:

#define f_three thing.three

This ends up polluting the global namespace, and makes it difficult to
search for identifiers.

Another common work-around in kernel code avoids the pollution by avoiding
the named struct entirely, instead identifying the group's boundaries using
either a pair of empty anonymous structs of a pair of zero-element arrays:

struct foo {
int one;
struct { } start;
int two;
int three, four;
struct { } finish;
int five;
};

struct foo {
int one;
int start[0];
int two;
int three, four;
int finish[0];
int five;
};

This allows code to avoid needing to use a sub-struct named for member
references within the surrounding structure, but loses the benefits of
being able to actually use such a struct, making it rather fragile. Using
these requires open-coded calculation of sizes and offsets. The efforts
made to avoid common mistakes include lots of comments, or adding various
BUILD_BUG_ON()s. Such code is left with no way for the compiler to reason
about the boundaries (e.g. the "start" object looks like it's 0 bytes
in length), making bounds checking depend on open-coded calculations:

if (length > offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.start, &src.start, offsetof(struct foo, finish) -
offsetof(struct foo, start));

However, the vast majority of places in the kernel that operate on
groups of members do so without any identification of the grouping,
relying either on comments or implicit knowledge of the struct contents,
which is even harder for the compiler to reason about, and results in
even more fragile manual sizing, usually depending on member locations
outside of the region (e.g. to copy "two" and "three", use the start of
"four" to find the size):

BUILD_BUG_ON((offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, two)) ||
(offsetof(struct foo, four) <
offsetof(struct foo, three));
if (length > offsetof(struct foo, four) -
offsetof(struct foo, two))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.two, &src.two, length);

In order to have a regular programmatic way to describe a struct
region that can be used for references and sizing, can be examined for
bounds checking, avoids forcing the use of intermediate identifiers,
and avoids polluting the global namespace, introduce the struct_group()
macro. This macro wraps the member declarations to create an anonymous
union of an anonymous struct (no intermediate name) and a named struct
(for references and sizing):

struct foo {
int one;
struct_group(thing,
int two;
int three, four;
);
int five;
};

if (length > sizeof(src.thing))
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(&dst.thing, &src.thing, length);
do_something(dst.three);

There are some rare cases where the resulting struct_group() needs
attributes added, so struct_group_attr() is also introduced to allow
for specifying struct attributes (e.g. __align(x) or __packed).
Additionally, there are places where such declarations would like to
have the struct be tagged, so struct_group_tagged() is added.

Given there is a need for a handful of UAPI uses too, the underlying
__struct_group() macro has been defined in UAPI so it can be used there
too.

To avoid confusing scripts/kernel-doc, hide the macro from its struct
parsing.

Co-developed-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
Acked-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728023217.GC35706@embeddedor
Enhanced-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/41183a98-bdb9-4ad6-7eab-5a7292a6df84@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Enhanced-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1d9a2e6df2a9a35b2cdd50a9a68cac5991e7e5f0.camel@intel.com
Enhanced-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YQKa76A6XuFqgM03@phenom.ffwll.local
Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing fle

stddef: Introduce DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() helper

[ Upstream commit 3080ea5553cc909b000d1f1d964a9041962f2c5b ]

There are many places where kernel code wants to have several different
typed trailing flexible arrays. This would normally be done with multiple
flexible arrays in a union, but since GCC and Clang don't (on the surface)
allow this, there have been many open-coded workarounds, usually involving
neighboring 0-element arrays at the end of a structure. For example,
instead of something like this:

struct thing {
...
union {
struct type1 foo[];
struct type2 bar[];
};
};

code works around the compiler with:

struct thing {
...
struct type1 foo[0];
struct type2 bar[];
};

Another case is when a flexible array is wanted as the single member
within a struct (which itself is usually in a union). For example, this
would be worked around as:

union many {
...
struct {
struct type3 baz[0];
};
};

These kinds of work-arounds cause problems with size checks against such
zero-element arrays (for example when building with -Warray-bounds and
-Wzero-length-bounds, and with the coming FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements),
so they must all be converted to "real" flexible arrays, avoiding warnings
like this:

fs/hpfs/anode.c: In function 'hpfs_add_sector_to_btree':
fs/hpfs/anode.c:209:27: warning: array subscript 0 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'struct bplus_internal_node[0]' [-Wzero-length-bounds]
209 | anode->btree.u.internal[0].down = cpu_to_le32(a);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~
In file included from fs/hpfs/hpfs_fn.h:26,
from fs/hpfs/anode.c:10:
fs/hpfs/hpfs.h:412:32: note: while referencing 'internal'
412 | struct bplus_internal_node internal[0]; /* (internal) 2-word entries giving
| ^~~~~~~~

drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c: In function 'es58x_fd_tx_can_msg':
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:360:35: warning: array subscript 65535 is outside the bounds of an interior zero-length array 'u8[0]' {aka 'unsigned char[]'} [-Wzero-length-bounds]
360 | tx_can_msg = (typeof(tx_can_msg))&es58x_fd_urb_cmd->raw_msg[msg_len];
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_core.h:22,
from drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.c:17:
drivers/net/can/usb/etas_es58x/es58x_fd.h:231:6: note: while referencing 'raw_msg'
231 | u8 raw_msg[0];
| ^~~~~~~

However, it _is_ entirely possible to have one or more flexible arrays
in a struct or union: it just has to be in another struct. And since it
cannot be alone in a struct, such a struct must have at least 1 other
named member -- but that member can be zero sized. Wrap all this nonsense
into the new DECLARE_FLEX_ARRAY() in support of having flexible arrays
in unions (or alone in a struct).

As with struct_group(), since this is needed in UAPI headers as well,
implement the core there, with a non-UAPI wrapper.

Additionally update kernel-doc to understand its existence.

https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/137

Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

show more ...