Commit 29637951 authored by Gustavo A. R. Silva's avatar Gustavo A. R. Silva Committed by Ard Biesheuvel

efi: Replace zero-length array and use struct_size() helper

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.

Lastly, make use of the sizeof_field() helper instead of an open-coded
version.

This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle and audited _manually_.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: default avatarGustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200527171425.GA4053@embeddedorSigned-off-by: default avatarArd Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
parent 4353f033
...@@ -622,7 +622,8 @@ int __init efi_config_parse_tables(const efi_config_table_t *config_tables, ...@@ -622,7 +622,8 @@ int __init efi_config_parse_tables(const efi_config_table_t *config_tables,
rsv = (void *)(p + prsv % PAGE_SIZE); rsv = (void *)(p + prsv % PAGE_SIZE);
/* reserve the entry itself */ /* reserve the entry itself */
memblock_reserve(prsv, EFI_MEMRESERVE_SIZE(rsv->size)); memblock_reserve(prsv,
struct_size(rsv, entry, rsv->size));
for (i = 0; i < atomic_read(&rsv->count); i++) { for (i = 0; i < atomic_read(&rsv->count); i++) {
memblock_reserve(rsv->entry[i].base, memblock_reserve(rsv->entry[i].base,
......
...@@ -1236,14 +1236,11 @@ struct linux_efi_memreserve { ...@@ -1236,14 +1236,11 @@ struct linux_efi_memreserve {
struct { struct {
phys_addr_t base; phys_addr_t base;
phys_addr_t size; phys_addr_t size;
} entry[0]; } entry[];
}; };
#define EFI_MEMRESERVE_SIZE(count) (sizeof(struct linux_efi_memreserve) + \
(count) * sizeof(((struct linux_efi_memreserve *)0)->entry[0]))
#define EFI_MEMRESERVE_COUNT(size) (((size) - sizeof(struct linux_efi_memreserve)) \ #define EFI_MEMRESERVE_COUNT(size) (((size) - sizeof(struct linux_efi_memreserve)) \
/ sizeof(((struct linux_efi_memreserve *)0)->entry[0])) / sizeof_field(struct linux_efi_memreserve, entry[0]))
void __init efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size); void __init efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment