Seven fixes; three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata.
Signed-off-by: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iJwEABMIAEQWIQTnYEDbdso9F2cI+arnQslM7pishQUCXptd+CYcamFtZXMuYm90
dG9tbGV5QGhhbnNlbnBhcnRuZXJzaGlwLmNvbQAKCRDnQslM7pishbngAP46suq5
KFaRycXl1lmznlPmM7gyFfszxDV3hp9SusFrzgEAxV4S6vdgEsF2pd5F6EYZoV0i
eCPKR6qDY4SaiUcGFRA=
=B9UG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi
Pull SCSI fixes from James Bottomley:
"Seven fixes: three in target, one on a sg error leg, two in qla2xxx
fixing warnings introduced in the last merge window and updating
MAINTAINERS and one in hisi_sas fixing a problem introduced by libata"
* tag 'scsi-fixes' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi:
scsi: sg: add sg_remove_request in sg_common_write
scsi: target: tcmu: reset_ring should reset TCMU_DEV_BIT_BROKEN
scsi: target: fix PR IN / READ FULL STATUS for FC
scsi: target: Write NULL to *port_nexus_ptr if no ISID
scsi: MAINTAINERS: Update qla2xxx FC-SCSI driver maintainer
scsi: qla2xxx: Fix regression warnings
scsi: hisi_sas: Fix build error without SATA_HOST
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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("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 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
pmbus/isl68137:
Fix up chip IDs
drivetemp:
Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
Use true module name
k10temp:
Fix static symbol warnings
jc42:
Use valid hwmon device name
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=gfMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging
Pull hwmon fixes from Guenter Roeck:
- Fix up chip IDs (isl68137)
- error handling for invalid temperatures and use true module name
(drivetemp)
- Fix static symbol warnings (k10temp)
- Use valid hwmon device name (jc42)
* tag 'hwmon-for-v5.7-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging:
hwmon: (jc42) Fix name to have no illegal characters
hwmon: (k10temp) make some symbols static
hwmon: (drivetemp) Return -ENODATA for invalid temperatures
hwmon: (drivetemp) Use drivetemp's true module name in Kconfig section
hwmon: (pmbus/isl68137) Fix up chip IDs
tipc_rcv() invokes tipc_node_find() twice, which returns a reference of
the specified tipc_node object to "n" with increased refcnt.
When tipc_rcv() returns or a new object is assigned to "n", the original
local reference of "n" becomes invalid, so the refcount should be
decreased to keep refcount balanced.
The issue happens in some paths of tipc_rcv(), which forget to decrease
the refcnt increased by tipc_node_find() and will cause a refcnt leak.
Fix this issue by calling tipc_node_put() before the original object
pointed by "n" becomes invalid.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
tipc_crypto_rcv() invokes tipc_aead_get(), which returns a reference of
the tipc_aead object to "aead" with increased refcnt.
When tipc_crypto_rcv() returns, the original local reference of "aead"
becomes invalid, so the refcount should be decreased to keep refcount
balanced.
The issue happens in one error path of tipc_crypto_rcv(). When TIPC
message decryption status is EINPROGRESS or EBUSY, the function forgets
to decrease the refcnt increased by tipc_aead_get() and causes a refcnt
leak.
Fix this issue by calling tipc_aead_put() on the error path when TIPC
message decryption status is EINPROGRESS or EBUSY.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
nr_add_node() invokes nr_neigh_get_dev(), which returns a local
reference of the nr_neigh object to "nr_neigh" with increased refcnt.
When nr_add_node() returns, "nr_neigh" becomes invalid, so the refcount
should be decreased to keep refcount balanced.
The issue happens in one normal path of nr_add_node(), which forgets to
decrease the refcnt increased by nr_neigh_get_dev() and causes a refcnt
leak. It should decrease the refcnt before the function returns like
other normal paths do.
Fix this issue by calling nr_neigh_put() before the nr_add_node()
returns.
Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@fudan.edu.cn>
Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
The commit 1c76aa5fb4 ("ALSA: hda/realtek - Allow skipping
spec->init_amp detection") changed the way to assign spec->init_amp
field that specifies the way to initialize the amp. Along with the
change, the commit also replaced a few fixups that set spec->init_amp
in HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PROBE with HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PRE_PROBE. This was rather
aligning to the other fixups, and not supposed to change the actual
behavior.
However, this change turned out to cause a regression on FSC S7020,
which hit exactly the above. The reason was that there is still one
place that overrides spec->init_amp after HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PRE_PROBE
call, namely in alc_ssid_check().
This patch fixes the regression by adding the proper spec->init_amp
override check, i.e. verifying whether it's still ALC_INIT_UNDEFINED.
Fixes: 1c76aa5fb4 ("ALSA: hda/realtek - Allow skipping spec->init_amp detection")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=207329
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200418190639.10082-1-tiwai@suse.de
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Many Focusrite devices supports a limited set of sample rates per
altsetting. These includes audio interfaces with ADAT ports:
- Scarlett 18i6, 18i8 1st gen, 18i20 1st gen;
- Scarlett 18i8 2nd gen, 18i20 2nd gen;
- Scarlett 18i8 3rd gen, 18i20 3rd gen;
- Clarett 2Pre USB, 4Pre USB, 8Pre USB.
Maximum rate is exposed in the last 4 bytes of Format Type descriptor
which has a non-standard bLength = 10.
Tested-by: Alexey Skobkin <skobkin-ru@ya.ru>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Tsoy <alexander@tsoy.me>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200418175815.12211-1-alexander@tsoy.me
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
- Fix a partially uninitialized variable.
- Teach the background gc threads to apply for fsfreeze protection.
- Fix some scaling problems when multiple threads try to flush the
filesystem when we're about to hit ENOSPC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEUzaAxoMeQq6m2jMV+H93GTRKtOsFAl6ZSVQACgkQ+H93GTRK
tOuPfg//XQ9HX0VAd4xYM3uAr50gNIUPMfOjrlUdZfnj+DOxJDb7IbN9t6+NXYU7
dfVdUeSPy7vwC/JUyVVgBbTfCX1CnQoeNWtg6EAdEF0msJIlbCH4sm+pI2Vofnqp
1VDT9fU1cmrtz/dtS6teJT49P/uCPCmKRGAcnIJn/E7FZUiDS0je2iwV8jbJtAyo
xfTHO39t5jBxBRBLRSuJUzYYvvW1ix3zheebLUQZMolnKRkKafWPja1I2N2lRt23
VnXwEjgFpqkT2OcDk5jljkJLbImHmNNVTc6J7SomtxZfWZDwvVfIHgMUC1OsyvW3
tJCp/22xAqqkBQS6Gx6qoXQubnqsfka86krq8C/juz5q5Doc7TPClpc4eyY/XZ0+
q3/67K9Z5MbudUQRmDBrNqmBBiI93qVB6DmeDLvQbBIIBDNFcWTRar0WB+/s/i3S
V4BMTyGfwU7u6ZSVzx+W619uLfgwH1mG4uzDg4xk4b4Uia3+/3zjJkh2WzrT98eq
N+jwQr5MbWyxmjbFtcsO6ZUqlh7X5RXmjFXBAZjauVwCQAaSvnHR2SdyAvUrD2bG
V2ujYVJ8dAJjXeS/9ILWW+oo/tQTlmmUE898oP6ZljuSYj/ONLqM4AMUoR4Ie1Vp
BTuRr0VkAoJH2yTK/OTXYe6mBCFSyrp2l3CEC7EDLrCRQQInbRo=
=YkcH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'xfs-5.7-fixes-3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux
Pull xfs fixes from Darrick Wong:
"The three commits here fix some livelocks and other clashes with
fsfreeze, a potential corruption problem, and a minor race between
processes freeing and allocating space when the filesystem is near
ENOSPC.
Summary:
- Fix a partially uninitialized variable.
- Teach the background gc threads to apply for fsfreeze protection.
- Fix some scaling problems when multiple threads try to flush the
filesystem when we're about to hit ENOSPC"
* tag 'xfs-5.7-fixes-3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux:
xfs: move inode flush to the sync workqueue
xfs: fix partially uninitialized structure in xfs_reflink_remap_extent
xfs: acquire superblock freeze protection on eofblocks scans
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEABYKAB0WIQRAhzRXHqcMeLMyaSiRxhvAZXjcogUCXprWIAAKCRCRxhvAZXjc
omUyAQCQcvJQhilLv0b7FtBAbN7+TkzV8vAQTzEITuHPa6m/HwEA2Gp9ZDTJfQbV
T6utOrTm/LT0mfBkiDLSnLPtVzh7mgE=
=Jz3d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'for-linus-2020-04-18' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux
Pull thread fixes from Christian Brauner:
"A few fixes and minor improvements:
- Correctly validate the cgroup file descriptor when clone3() is used
with CLONE_INTO_CGROUP.
- Check that a new enough version of struct clone_args is passed
which supports the cgroup file descriptor argument when
CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set in the flags argument.
- Catch nonsensical struct clone_args layouts at build time.
- Catch extensions of struct clone_args without updating the uapi
visible size definitions at build time.
- Check whether the signal is valid early in kill_pid_usb_asyncio()
before doing further work.
- Replace open-coded rcu_read_lock()+kill_pid_info()+rcu_read_unlock()
sequence in kill_something_info() with kill_proc_info() which is a
dedicated helper to do just that"
* tag 'for-linus-2020-04-18' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux:
clone3: add build-time CLONE_ARGS_SIZE_VER* validity checks
clone3: add a check for the user struct size if CLONE_INTO_CGROUP is set
clone3: fix cgroup argument sanity check
signal: use kill_proc_info instead of kill_pid_info in kill_something_info
signal: check sig before setting info in kill_pid_usb_asyncio
Pull i2c fixes from Wolfram Sang:
"Some driver bugfixes and an old API removal now that all users are
gone"
* 'i2c/for-current' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux:
i2c: tegra: Synchronize DMA before termination
i2c: tegra: Better handle case where CPU0 is busy for a long time
i2c: remove i2c_new_probed_device API
i2c: altera: use proper variable to hold errno
i2c: designware: platdrv: Remove DPM_FLAG_SMART_SUSPEND flag on BYT and CHT
i915:
- Fix guest page access by using the brand new VFIO dma r/w interface (Yan)
- Fix for i915 perf read buffers (Ashutosh)
amdgpu:
- gfx10 fix
- SMU7 overclocking fix
- RAS fix
- GPU reset fix
- Fix a regression in a previous s/r fix
- Add a gfxoff quirk
nouveau:
- fix missing MODULE_FIRMWARE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=wRCV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'drm-fixes-2020-04-18' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm
Pull drm fixes from Dave Airlie:
"Quiet enough for rc2, mostly amdgpu fixes, a couple of i915 fixes, and
one nouveau module firmware fix:
i915:
- Fix guest page access by using the brand new VFIO dma r/w interface (Yan)
- Fix for i915 perf read buffers (Ashutosh)
amdgpu:
- gfx10 fix
- SMU7 overclocking fix
- RAS fix
- GPU reset fix
- Fix a regression in a previous suspend/resume fix
- Add a gfxoff quirk
nouveau:
- fix missing MODULE_FIRMWARE"
* tag 'drm-fixes-2020-04-18' of git://anongit.freedesktop.org/drm/drm:
drm/nouveau/sec2/gv100-: add missing MODULE_FIRMWARE()
drm/amdgpu/gfx9: add gfxoff quirk
drm/amdgpu: fix the hw hang during perform system reboot and reset
drm/i915/gvt: switch to user vfio_group_pin/upin_pages
drm/i915/gvt: subsitute kvm_read/write_guest with vfio_dma_rw
drm/i915/gvt: hold reference of VFIO group during opening of vgpu
drm/i915/perf: Do not clear pollin for small user read buffers
drm/amdgpu: fix wrong vram lost counter increment V2
drm/amd/powerplay: unload mp1 for Arcturus RAS baco reset
drm/amd/powerplay: force the trim of the mclk dpm_levels if OD is enabled
Revert "drm/amdgpu: change SH MEM alignment mode for gfx10"
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
This change doesn't affect existing code. Inner namespace indentation
can lead to a lot of indentation in the case of anonymous namespaces and
the like, impeding readability. Of the clang-format builtin styles
LLVM, Google, Chromium and Mozilla use None while WebKit uses Inner.
Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Tremont CPUs support IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES bits to indicate whether
specific SKUs have support for split lock detection.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-4-tony.luck@intel.com
The Intel Software Developers' Manual erroneously listed bit 5 of the
IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES register as an architectural feature. It is not.
Features enumerated by IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES are model specific and
implementation details may vary in different cpu models. Thus it is only
safe to trust features after checking the CPU model.
Icelake client and server models are known to implement the split lock
detect feature even though they don't enumerate IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES
[ tglx: Use switch() for readability and massage comments ]
Fixes: 6650cdd9a8 ("x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel")
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200416205754.21177-3-tony.luck@intel.com
free_more_memory func has been completely removed in commit bc48f001de
("buffer: eliminate the need to call free_more_memory() in __getblk_slow()")
So comment and `WB_REASON_FREE_MORE_MEM` reason about free_more_memory
are no longer needed.
Fixes: bc48f001de ("buffer: eliminate the need to call free_more_memory() in __getblk_slow()")
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Zhiqiang Liu <liuzhiqiang26@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Zero Port's PBN together with VCPI slots when releasing
allocated VCPI slots. That way when disabling the connector
it will not cause issues in drm_dp_mst_atomic_check verifying
branch bw limit.
Signed-off-by: Mikita Lipski <mikita.lipski@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Fixes: cd82d82cbc ("drm/dp_mst: Add branch bandwidth validation to MST atomic check")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.6+
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200407160717.27976-1-mikita.lipski@amd.com
We were registering the aux device in the MST late_register
rather than the regular one.
v2: handle eDP as well
Fixes: 405a1f9090 ("drm/amdgpu/display: split dp connector registration (v4)")
Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1100
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@amd.com>
Initialize thermal controller fields in the PowerPlay table for Hawaii
GPUs, so that fan speeds are reported.
Signed-off-by: Sandeep Raghuraman <sandy.8925@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
When the amdgpu in the suspend/resume loop need notify the dpm disabled,
otherwise the smu table will be uninitialize and result in resume failed.
Signed-off-by: Prike Liang <Prike.Liang@amd.com>
Tested-by: Mengbing Wang <Mengbing.Wang@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
