[PATCH] apparmor: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array

[PATCH] apparmor: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:

struct foo {
        int stuff;
        struct boo array[];
};

By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.

Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:

"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]

sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array
members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in
which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to
zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances may be hiding
some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member conversions) will also
help to get completely rid of those sorts of issues.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")

Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
---
 security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c b/security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c
index 280741fc0f5f..299994ff9168 100644
--- a/security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c
+++ b/security/apparmor/apparmorfs.c
@@ -839,7 +839,7 @@ static ssize_t query_label(char *buf, size_t buf_len,
 struct multi_transaction {
 	struct kref count;
 	ssize_t size;
-	char data[0];
+	char data[];
 };
 
 #define MULTI_TRANSACTION_LIMIT (PAGE_SIZE - sizeof(struct multi_transaction))

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array

[John Johansen]

On 5/7/20 11:43 AM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
> extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
> variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
> introduced in C99:
> 
> struct foo {
>         int stuff;
>         struct boo array[];
> };
> 
> By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
> in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
> will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
> inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
> 
> Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
> this change:
> 
> "Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
> may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
> zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
> 
> sizeof(flexible-array-member) triggers a warning because flexible array
> members have incomplete type[1]. There are some instances of code in
> which the sizeof operator is being incorrectly/erroneously applied to
> zero-length arrays and the result is zero. Such instances may be hiding
> some bugs. So, this work (flexible-array member conversions) will also
> help to get completely rid of those sorts of issues.
> 
> This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
> 
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
> [2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
> [3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>

I have pulled this into my tree

Re: [PATCH] apparmor: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array

[Gustavo A. R. Silva]

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:03:47PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
> 
> I have pulled this into my tree

Great. :)

Thanks, John.
--
Gustavo