| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
JESD216 rev D makes BFPT 20 DWORDs. Update the BFPT size define to
reflect that.
The check for rev A or later compared the BFPT header length with the
maximum BFPT length, BFPT_DWORD_MAX. Since BFPT_DWORD_MAX was 16, and so
was the BFPT length for both rev A and B, this check worked fine. But
now, since BFPT_DWORD_MAX is 20, it means this check will also stop BFPT
parsing for rev A or B, since their length is 16.
So, instead check for BFPT_DWORD_MAX_JESD216 to stop BFPT parsing for
the first JESD216 version, and check for BFPT_DWORD_MAX_JESD216B for the
next two versions.
Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
JESD216D.01 says that when the address width can be 3 or 4, it defaults
to 3 and enters 4-byte mode when given the appropriate command. So, when
we see a configurable width, default to 3 and let flash that default to
4 change it in a post-bfpt fixup.
This fixes SMPT parsing for flashes with configurable address width. If
the SMPT descriptor advertises variable address width, we use
nor->addr_width as the address width. But since it was not set to any
value from the SFDP table, the read command uses an address width of 0,
resulting in an incorrect read being issued.
Signed-off-by: Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
The Cypress cy15b104q and cy15v104q are 4Mbit serial SPI F-RAM devices.
Add support for them to the spi-nor driver.
The actual Device ID of this chip is 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f 7f c2 2c 04. That is
six times the continuation code 7f followed by c2 for Ramtron.
Unfortunately the chip sends the Device ID in reversed order, so the
continuation code is not at the beginning, but instead at the end. Even
more unfortunate is that when reading further the chip sends more 7f
codes which means we are not even able to count the continuation codes.
We can only hope that this reversed Device ID will never match any other
devices ID.
Collisions are improbable as of now, the solution from above is good
enough. In case of future collisions one can introduce an INFO9 macro,
with the downsize that struct flash_info would grow and we have lots of
flashes. A more elegant solution would be to introduce dedicated
flash ID tables for each bank in JESP106BA.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
[tudor.ambarus@microchip.com: amend commit description with possible
future solutions in case collisions occur.]
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
The correct terminology is serial NOR flash or SPI NOR.
s/SPI-NOR/SPI NOR and s/spi-nor/SPI NOR across the subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
|
|
s25fs256s was identified as s25fl256s. Differentiate between them by
the Family ID using the INFO6 macro.
Fixes: b199489d37b2 ("mtd: spi-nor: add the framework for SPI NOR")
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
|
|
Add support for Cypress s25fs128s1 flash. Previously the flash is
decoded as s25fl129p1 by mistake.
Add it in the flash info list to correctly decode. The flash also
needs a fixup for s25fs-s family. Further capability of the flash will
be parsed from bfpt.
The flash has been tested under SPI/DUAL/QUAD mode on hisi-sfc-v3xx
controller, all the write/read/erase works well.
Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
Spansion S25FS-S family has an issue in the Basic Flash Parameter Table
(BFPT): Dword-11 bits 7:4 specify a page size of 512 bytes. Actually
this is configurable in the vendor unique register (CR3V) and even the
factory default setting is to "wrap at 256 bytes", so blindly relying
on BFPT breaks the page writes on these chips. Add the post-BFPT fixup
which restores the default page size of 256 bytes -- to properly read
CR3V this early is quite intrusive and should better be done as a new
feature; Alexander Sverdlin had the patch doing that:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/patch/20200227123657.26030-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com/
Fixes: dfd2b74530e ("mtd: spi-nor: add Spansion S25FS512S ID")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
Tested-by: Kuldeep Singh <kuldeep.singh@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
The functions return 1 if ready, 0 if not ready, -errno on errors.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
|
|
spi_nor_ready() returns 1 if ready, 0 if not ready and -errno on errors.
Do the same in all the spi_nor_*_ready() children.
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
|
|
n25q00 uses the 4 bit Block Protection scheme and supports Top/Bottom
protection via the BP and TB bits of the Status Register.
Enable locking for n25q00. Tested with cirrus controller.
Signed-off-by: Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
mx25u51245g is a mass production for new design and
replace mx66u51235f(phase out).
Validated by read, erase, read back, write and read back
on Xilinx Zynq PicoZed FPGA board which included
Macronix SPI Host (driver/spi/spi-mxic.c).
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <masonccyang@mxic.com.tw>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
mx25l51245g is a mass production for new design and
replace mx66l51235l(phase out).
Validated by read, erase, read back, write and read back
on Xilinx Zynq PicoZed FPGA board which included
Macronix SPI Host (driver/spi/spi-mxic.c).
Signed-off-by: Mason Yang <masonccyang@mxic.com.tw>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When spi_nor_info_init_params(), spi_nor_sfdp_init_params(), and
spi_nor_init_params() were added, the kernel-doc for them contained
a typo: 'struct spi-nor' instead of 'struct spi_nor' -- fix them.
Fixes: 1c1d8d98e1c7 ("mtd: spi-nor: Split spi_nor_init_params()")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params() was added, the kernel-doc for it
contained a typo: 'struct spi-nor' instead of 'struct spi_nor' -- fix it.
Fixes: ce0b6f3f3c43 ("mtd: spi-nor: Add default_init() hook to tweak flash parameters")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When adding the 'spimem' field to 'struct spi_nor', a grammar mistake
("point" instead of "pointer") was made -- fix it and convert the SPI
acronym to uppercase and fully spell out "memory", while at it...
Fixes: b35b9a10362 ("mtd: spi-nor: Move m25p80 code in spi-nor.c")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When adding the 'info' field to 'struct spi_nor', some acronyms were in
lower case and some in upper case and the JEDEC acronym mistyped -- fix
these issues.
Fixes: 46dde01f6bab ("mtd: spi-nor: add spi_nor_init() function")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When adding the '{read|write|reg}_proto' fields to 'struct spi_nor', a
colon was missed in the comment for the spi_nor::reg_proto' -- add it.
Fixes: cfc5604c488c ("mtd: spi-nor: introduce SPI 1-2-2 and SPI 1-4-4 protocols")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When embedding 'struct mtd_info' within 'struct spi_nor', the kernel-doc
comment was forgotten. Fix it by dropping the "pointer to" part from the
comment.
Fixes: 1976367173a4 ("mtd: spi-nor: embed struct mtd_info within struct spi_nor")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
When introducing 'struct spi_nor', a number of issues was added in its
kernel-doc comment:
- double article in the heading kernel-doc comment;
- "point" instead of "pointer" for the 'mtd' and 'dev' fields;
- "a" articles instead of "an" for the 'dev' field;
- acronyms in the lower case for the 'dev' field;
- missing "pointer to" for the 'priv' field.
Fix all of those at once...
Fixes: 6e602ef73334 ("mtd: spi-nor: add the basic data structures")
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
As 4bit block protection patchset for some micron models are merged,
n25q128a11 also uses 4 bit Block Protection scheme, so enable locking
for it. Tested it on n25q128a11, the locking functions work well.
Signed-off-by: Xiang Chen <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
Reviewed-by: Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@samsung.com>
Tested-by: Shreyas Joshi <shreyasjoshi15@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
The s25fl256s0 supports dual and quad read like s25fl256s1.
Enable it by adding SPI_NOR_DUAL_READ and SPI_NOR_QUAD_READ
flags to the flash_info entry. Tested with the device and
confirmed that is working.
Signed-off-by: Takahiro Kuwano <Takahiro.Kuwano@cypress.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
The write disable (WRDI) opcode is not really specific to the SST flashes
(anymore?) -- move the #define to the main opcode group, just before WREN.
Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
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]
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 <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
Pratyush Yadav
Sascha Hauer
Tudor Ambarus
Yicong Yang
Sergei Shtylyov
Jungseung Lee
Mason Yang
Xiang Chen
Takahiro Kuwano
Linus Torvalds
Brian Geffon
Gustavo A. R. Silva