Re: [PATCH][next] drm/nouveau: chan: Avoid -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end warnings

Gustavo A. R. Silva
2025-04-11T07:27:02Z

On 08/04/25 17:40, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 05:35:47PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>> - struct {
>>>>>> - struct nvif_chan_v0 chan;
>>>>>> - char name[TASK_COMM_LEN+16];
>>>>>> - } args;
>>>>>> + DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(struct nvif_chan_v0, args, name, TASK_COMM_LEN + 16);
>>>>>> struct nvif_device *device = &cli->device;
>>>>>> struct nouveau_channel *chan;
>>>>>> const u64 plength = 0x10000;
>>>>>> @@ -298,28 +295,28 @@ nouveau_channel_ctor(struct nouveau_cli *cli, bool priv, u64 runm,
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> /* create channel object */
>>>>>> - args.chan.version = 0;
>>>>>> - args.chan.namelen = sizeof(args.name);
>>>>>> - args.chan.runlist = __ffs64(runm);
>>>>>> - args.chan.runq = 0;
>>>>>> - args.chan.priv = priv;
>>>>>> - args.chan.devm = BIT(0);
>>>>>> + args->version = 0;
>>>>>> + args->namelen = __struct_size(args) - sizeof(*args);
>>>>>
>>>>> Does __struct_size(args->name) work here (and later)?
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>> Uhm, I'm genuinely curious. I *think* it will work, but because it's
>>> within the struct, not outside of it, I'm unclear if it'll DTRT for
>>> finding the size (since __builtin_object_size() can be touchy).
>>>
>>>> I mean, this should be equivalent to `TASK_COMM_LEN+16`, I could
>>>> use the latter if people prefer it (see my comments below).
>>>
>>> Right, it should be the same. I think __struct_size(args->name) would be
>>> much more readable ... if it works. :)
>>
>> OK, I'll double check this.
>
> Ah-ha, yes, I'm already testing this with KUnit:
>
> struct bar {
> int a;
> u32 counter;
> s16 array[];
> };
> ...
> DEFINE_RAW_FLEX(struct bar, two, array, 2);
> ...
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(*two), sizeof(struct bar));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __struct_size(two), sizeof(struct bar) + 2 * sizeof(s16));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __member_size(two), sizeof(struct bar) + 2 * sizeof(s16));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __struct_size(two->array), 2 * sizeof(s16));
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, __member_size(two->array), 2 * sizeof(s16));

Nice! I was taking a look at this, and now I want to use __member_size(p->array)
instead of __struct_size(p->array). ^.^

>
>
>> I really don't want to condition -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end patches
>> on counted_by patches, for now.
>
> Fair enough. :) One thing at a time is wise!
>

\o/

--
Gustavo