vla: Use proper C99 flexible array #81895
Conversation
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
ceolin
force-pushed
the
security/vla
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9179363
to
2a2a658
Compare
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
0 length array is a GNU extension. Use proper C99 flexible array. Signed-off-by: Flavio Ceolin <[email protected]>
zephyrbot
added
area: Bluetooth Classic
zephyrbot
requested review from
alwa-nordic,
asbjornsabo,
babrsn,
Casper-Bonde-Bose,
fredrikdanebjer and
hermabe
zephyrbot
requested review from
jhedberg,
jthm-ot,
kruithofa,
larsgk,
MariuszSkamra,
niym-ot,
pin-zephyr,
sjanc and
Thalley
|
Do I understand correctly that Since using the macro doesn't really improve readability (quite the opposite), I'm wondering, why don't we limit the macro usage only to the situations where the standard way can't directly be used, and use just |
| @@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ struct bt_hci_handle_count { | |||
| #define BT_HCI_OP_HOST_NUM_COMPLETED_PACKETS BT_OP(BT_OGF_BASEBAND, 0x0035) /* 0x0c35 */ | |||
| struct bt_hci_cp_host_num_completed_packets { | |||
| uint8_t num_handles; | |||
| struct bt_hci_handle_count h[0]; | |||
| FLEXIBLE_ARRAY_DECLARE(struct bt_hci_handle_count, h); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi,
why not simply use foo[] instead of macro which adds some extra __unused_foo members under the hood?
also, this declares unpacked structures inside packed structure, are those guaranteed to not affect packed struct alignment or no padding requirements?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sjanc this was also my worry (see my earlier comment). I'd prefer if the macro was only used in the corner cases where you can't directly use [].
As part of upcoming hardening buffer checks on Zephyr we need to sanitize the usage of flexible array. This pr properly declare flexible arrays according to C99 standard, not relying on non-portable GNU extension.