Hello,

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:54:23PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

From your earlier comment I understand that there is no problem in
this case because we know that cgroup_root->cgrp will always be
empty.

However in other instances the warning could point out actual errors
in the code, so I think it is good to have this warning generally
enabled. If cgroup_root was defined in a .c file we could consider to
disable the warning locally, but since the definition is in a header
that is widely included (indirectly through linux/cgroup.h and
net/sock.h) this doesn't seem to be an option.

Is there a good reason for the current position of cgrp within
cgroup_root? If there are no drawbacks in moving it to the end of
the struct I think Nick's patch is a reasonable solution.

This all sounds really bogus to me.  Let's say we have something like
the following.

  struct flex_struct {
  	int array[];
  };

And the following two usages.

1.

  struct flex_struct *fs =
	kmalloc(sizeof(struct flex_struct) + N * sizeof(int));

2.

  struct enclosing_struct es {
	struct flex_struct fs;
	int fs_array_storage[N];
  };

  struct enclosing_struct *es =
	kmalloc(sizeof(struct enclosing_struct));

So, you're saying #1 is okay but #2 is not, which is just silly.  The
compiler can't warn correctly about flex array members whether they're
embedded or not.  Nothing prevents somebody accessing beyond N in #1
either.

This effort seems really pointless to me.  Let's please not waste any
more bandwidth on this.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun