Hi Linus,
Please, pull the following patches that replace zero-length arrays with
flexible-array members.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
two development cycles now.
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
C99 introduced “flexible array members”, which lacks a numeric size for the
array declaration entirely:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
This is the way the kernel expects dynamically sized trailing elements to be
declared. It allows the compiler to generate errors when the flexible array
does not occur last in the structure, which helps to prevent some kind of
undefined behavior[3] bugs from being inadvertently introduced to the codebase.
It also allows the compiler to correctly analyze array sizes (via sizeof(),
CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS). For instance, there is no
mechanism that warns us that the following application of the sizeof() operator
to a zero-length array always results in zero:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[0];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
At the last line of code above, size turns out to be zero, when one might have
thought it represents the total size in bytes of the dynamic memory recently
allocated for the trailing array items. Here are a couple examples of this
issue[4][5]. Instead, flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the
sizeof() operator may not be applied[6], so any misuse of such operators will
be immediately noticed at build time.
The cleanest and least error-prone way to implement this is through the use of
a flexible array member:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items[0]) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
Thanks
--
Gustavo
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] https://git.kernel.org/linus/76497732932f15e7323dc805e8ea8dc11bb587cf
[4] https://git.kernel.org/linus/f2cd32a443da694ac4e28fbf4ac6f9d5cc63a539
[5] https://git.kernel.org/linus/ab91c2a89f86be2898cee208d492816ec238b2cf
[6] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=8HUQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'flex-array-conversions-5.8-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux
Pull flexible-array member conversions from Gustavo A. R. Silva:
"Replace zero-length arrays with flexible-array members.
Notice that all of these patches have been baking in linux-next for
two development cycles now.
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare
having a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure.
Kernel code should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these
cases. The older style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no
longer be used[2].
C99 introduced “flexible array members”, which lacks a numeric size
for the array declaration entirely:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
This is the way the kernel expects dynamically sized trailing elements
to be declared. It allows the compiler to generate errors when the
flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which helps to
prevent some kind of undefined behavior[3] bugs from being
inadvertently introduced to the codebase.
It also allows the compiler to correctly analyze array sizes (via
sizeof(), CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, and CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS). For
instance, there is no mechanism that warns us that the following
application of the sizeof() operator to a zero-length array always
results in zero:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[0];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
At the last line of code above, size turns out to be zero, when one
might have thought it represents the total size in bytes of the
dynamic memory recently allocated for the trailing array items. Here
are a couple examples of this issue[4][5].
Instead, flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the
sizeof() operator may not be applied[6], so any misuse of such
operators will be immediately noticed at build time.
The cleanest and least error-prone way to implement this is through
the use of a flexible array member:
struct something {
size_t count;
struct foo items[];
};
struct something *instance;
instance = kmalloc(struct_size(instance, items, count), GFP_KERNEL);
instance->count = count;
size = sizeof(instance->items[0]) * instance->count;
memcpy(instance->items, source, size);
instead"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 7649773293 ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
[4] commit f2cd32a443 ("rndis_wlan: Remove logically dead code")
[5] commit ab91c2a89f ("tpm: eventlog: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array member")
[6] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
* tag 'flex-array-conversions-5.8-rc2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gustavoars/linux: (41 commits)
w1: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tracing/probe: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
soc: ti: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tifm: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
dmaengine: tegra-apb: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
stm class: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
Squashfs: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
ASoC: SOF: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
ima: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
sctp: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
phy: samsung: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
RxRPC: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
rapidio: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
media: pwc: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
firmware: pcdp: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
oprofile: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
block: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
tools/testing/nvdimm: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
libata: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
kprobes: Replace zero-length array with flexible-array
...
The purgatory Makefile removes -fstack-protector options if they were
configured in, but does not currently add -fno-stack-protector.
If gcc was configured with the --enable-default-ssp configure option,
this results in the stack protector still being enabled for the
purgatory (absent distro-specific specs files that might disable it
again for freestanding compilations), if the main kernel is being
compiled with stack protection enabled (if it's disabled for the main
kernel, the top-level Makefile will add -fno-stack-protector).
This will break the build since commit
e4160b2e4b ("x86/purgatory: Fail the build if purgatory.ro has missing symbols")
and prior to that would have caused runtime failure when trying to use
kexec.
Explicitly add -fno-stack-protector to avoid this, as done in other
Makefiles that need to disable the stack protector.
Reported-by: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@googlemail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having a
dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code should
always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older style of
one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
When a user tries to parse a symbol located inside a module he must have
modpath set. Otherwise, decode_stacktrace won't be able to parse the
symbol correctly.
Right now the failure is silent and easily missed by the user. What's
worse is that by the time the user realizes what happened (or someone on
LKML asks him to add the modpath and re-run), he might have already got
rid of the vmlinux/modules.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
includes the per-inode DAX support, which was dependant on the DAX
infrastructure which came in via the XFS tree, and a number of
regression and bug fixes; most notably the "BUG: using
smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in ext4_mb_new_blocks" reported
by syzkaller.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEK2m5VNv+CHkogTfJ8vlZVpUNgaMFAl7mgCcACgkQ8vlZVpUN
gaPftwf8C4w/7SG+CYLdwg0d2u9TKk77yDuWaioFHOcMSjZvG4TCSgtMhZxQnyty
9t4yqacILx12pCj/mZnrZp5BOSn9O2ZbuDoXNKNrFXU0BF+CsbnhvJvrrh1j/MUa
PPtcqyGFdOLSDvHSD9xPVT76juwh79aR8vB7qnQXaEO5wcLodZWoqBEFSKCl6Bo8
hjXs1EXidusKsoarQxW6mEITmnhU2S2fuCVDgVcoM/LmKwzbgqvlWrentq9u8qLH
W+XbjWgUtCM1byeDZWqe5FYyyJ8x+dTv7H5an3KR92EN6hKo5AOvzA0I41pZscq/
bJ9p2THDxJQX4rJBevGAS5mZ6hTkRw==
=z6eO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'ext4-for-linus-5.8-rc1-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4
Pull more ext4 updates from Ted Ts'o:
"This is the second round of ext4 commits for 5.8 merge window [1].
It includes the per-inode DAX support, which was dependant on the DAX
infrastructure which came in via the XFS tree, and a number of
regression and bug fixes; most notably the "BUG: using
smp_processor_id() in preemptible code in ext4_mb_new_blocks" reported
by syzkaller"
[1] The pull request actually came in 15 minutes after I had tagged the
rc1 release. Tssk, tssk, late.. - Linus
* tag 'ext4-for-linus-5.8-rc1-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4:
ext4, jbd2: ensure panic by fix a race between jbd2 abort and ext4 error handlers
ext4: support xattr gnu.* namespace for the Hurd
ext4: mballoc: Use this_cpu_read instead of this_cpu_ptr
ext4: avoid utf8_strncasecmp() with unstable name
ext4: stop overwrite the errcode in ext4_setup_super
ext4: fix partial cluster initialization when splitting extent
ext4: avoid race conditions when remounting with options that change dax
Documentation/dax: Update DAX enablement for ext4
fs/ext4: Introduce DAX inode flag
fs/ext4: Remove jflag variable
fs/ext4: Make DAX mount option a tri-state
fs/ext4: Only change S_DAX on inode load
fs/ext4: Update ext4_should_use_dax()
fs/ext4: Change EXT4_MOUNT_DAX to EXT4_MOUNT_DAX_ALWAYS
fs/ext4: Disallow verity if inode is DAX
fs/ext4: Narrow scope of DAX check in setflags
SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
calls. The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make
it in for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for
v5.8 since we have it ready. We are planning on the rest of the work
for extending the SafeSetID LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge
window.
This patch was sent to the security mailing list and there were no objections.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=I+0L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux
Pull SafeSetID update from Micah Morton:
"Add additional LSM hooks for SafeSetID
SafeSetID is capable of making allow/deny decisions for set*uid calls
on a system, and we want to add similar functionality for set*gid
calls.
The work to do that is not yet complete, so probably won't make it in
for v5.8, but we are looking to get this simple patch in for v5.8
since we have it ready.
We are planning on the rest of the work for extending the SafeSetID
LSM being merged during the v5.9 merge window"
* tag 'LSM-add-setgid-hook-5.8-author-fix' of git://github.com/micah-morton/linux:
security: Add LSM hooks to set*gid syscalls
