[PATCH v2] ext4: Annotate struct fname with __counted_by()

[PATCH v2] ext4: Annotate struct fname with __counted_by()

[Thorsten Blum]

Add the __counted_by compiler attribute to the flexible array member
name to improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@linux.dev>
---
Changes in v2:
- Split the patch into two separate patches as suggested by Greg KH
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241104234214.8094-2-thorsten.blum@linux.dev/
---
 fs/ext4/dir.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/dir.c b/fs/ext4/dir.c
index ef6a3c8f3a9a..233479647f1b 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/dir.c
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ struct fname {
 	__u32		inode;
 	__u8		name_len;
 	__u8		file_type;
-	char		name[];
+	char		name[] __counted_by(name_len);
 };
 
 /*
-- 
2.47.0

Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: Annotate struct fname with __counted_by()

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 11:18:14 +0100, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Add the __counted_by compiler attribute to the flexible array member
> name to improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and
> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE.
> 
> 

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] ext4: Annotate struct fname with __counted_by()
      commit: de183b2baf90f0acc1854a3998c14b8b228f9643

By the way, in general, you don't need to resend patches unless you
need to rebase them to fix patch conflicts; I track requested patches
using patchwork, and I tend to process and review patches in batches.

If you are concerned that I might have missed a patch, feel free to
reply to the original patch with a ping.  I'll see it in my inbox, and
even if it had gotten lost in my inbox, I can find the original patch
using lore.kernel.org or patchwork.

Thanks!


Best regards,
-- 
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: Annotate struct fname with __counted_by()

[Thorsten Blum]

On 14. Nov 2024, at 14:53, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> By the way, in general, you don't need to resend patches unless you
> need to rebase them to fix patch conflicts; I track requested patches
> using patchwork, and I tend to process and review patches in batches.
> 
> If you are concerned that I might have missed a patch, feel free to
> reply to the original patch with a ping.  I'll see it in my inbox, and
> even if it had gotten lost in my inbox, I can find the original patch
> using lore.kernel.org or patchwork.

Thanks for letting me know.

Best regards,
Thorsten