On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 05:21:22PM +0200, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@embeddedor.com> wrote:
> Because struct cgroup ends in a flexible-array member `ancestors`.
> This triggers the -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warns about. So,
> while `ancestors` is indeed a flexible array, any instance of
> cgroup embedded in another struct should be placed at the end.

Oh, so TRAILING_OVERLAP() won't work like that?
(I thought that it'd hide the FAM from the end of the union and thus it
could embedded when wrapped like this. On second thought, I realize
that's exclusive with the static validations.)

> However, if we change it to something like this (and of course
> updating any related code, accordingly):
> 
> -       struct cgroup *ancestors[];
> +       struct cgroup **ancestors;
> 
> Then the flex in the middle issue goes away, and we can have
> struct cgroup embedded in another struct anywhere.
> 
> The question is if this would be an acceptable solution?
> 
> I'd probably prefer this to remain a flexible-array member,
> but I'd like to hear people's opinions and feedback. :)

I'd prefer if cgroup_create could still work with one allocation only
both for struct cgroup and its ancestors array. (Cgroup allocation
happens many times in a day.)

The increase in struct cgroup_root size is IMO not that problematic.
(There are typically at most CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT roots with gradual
trend to only the single cgrp_dfl_root.)

Note that it'd be good to keep it enclosed within struct cgroup_root
(cgroup1_root_to_use could use struct_size()), however, the
cgrp_dfl_root would still need the storage somewhere.

HTH,
Michal