Re: [GIT PULL] percpu fix for v5.9-rc6
From: Arvind Sankar
Date: Fri Sep 18 2020 - 17:00:55 EST
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:40:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:29 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In general (i.e. outside the implementation of the macro itself), what
> > is the preferred way of getting the size of just the header?
> > 1) offsetof(typeof(s),flex)
> > 2) struct_size(s, flex, 0)
> I think those two should end up being equivalent.
Yeah, but it would be good to standardize on one of them.
> > 3) sizeof(s)
> This works right now, but exactly *because* it works, we're not seeing
> the questionable cases.
> Of course, _also_ exactly because it just silently works, I also don't
> know if there may be thousands of perfectly fine uses where people
> really do want the header, and a "sizeof()" is simpler than
> alternatives 1-2.
> It's possible that there really are a lot of "I want to know just the
> header size" cases. It sounds odd, but I could _imagine_ situations
> like that, even though no actual case comes to mind.
I'm asking because I just added an instance of (3) and want to know if I
should change it :)
The case was when you have a function that got passed a pointer and a
size, and wants to verify that the size covers the structure before
accessing its fields. If the function only needs the "fixed" fields, it
feels a little unnatural to use (1) or (2) when the flex member is
otherwise not going be accessed at all.
> > 4) new macro that's easier to read than 1 or 2, but makes it clear
> > what you're doing?
> I don't think this would have any real advantage, would it?
The advantage is documenting that you do mean the header size, i.e.
something like struct_header_size(s).
> Now what might be good is if we can make "struct_size()" also actually
> verify that the member that is passed in is that last non-sized
> member. I'm not sure how to do that.
> I know how to check that it's *not* that last unsized member (just do
> "sizeof(s->flex)", and it should error), but I don't see how to assert
> the reverse of that).
> Because that kind of "yes, we actually pass in the right member" check
> would be good to have too.
You could just assert that offsetof(typeof(s),flex) == sizeof(s), no? It
would also make sure that someone doesn't try to use struct_size() with
a 1-sized array member.