# Re: \[PATCH net-next v3 1/7\] overflow: add DEFINE\_FLEX() for on-stack allocs

- From: Kees Cook \<hidden\>
- Date: 2023-08-17 17:00:20 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2023/08/11269847
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2023/08/11269614/t.md

```text
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:35:23PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Przemek Kitszel
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:06 PM
> > 
> > Using underlying array for on-stack storage lets us to declare
> > known-at-compile-time structures without kzalloc().
> 
> Isn't DEFINE_FLEX() a bit misleading?
> One thing it isn't is 'flexible' since it has a fixed size.

It works only on flex array structs, and defines a specific instance. I
think naming is okay here.

> 
> > +#define DEFINE_FLEX(type, name, member, count)					\
> > +	union {									\
> > +		u8 bytes[struct_size_t(type, member, count)];			\
> > +		type obj;							\
> > +	} name##_u __aligned(_Alignof(type)) = {};				\
> 
> You shouldn't need the _Alignof() it is the default.

In the sense that since "type" is in the union, it's okay?

> I'm not sure you should be forcing the memset() either.

This already got discussed: better to fail safe.

> 
> > +	type *name = (type *)&name##_u
> 
> How about?
> 	type *const name = &name_##_u.obj;

This is by design (see earlier threads) so that
__builtin_object_size(name, 1) will get the correct size. Otherwise it
doesn't include the FAM elements in the size.

> 
> You might want to add:
> 	Static_assert(is_constexpr(count), "DEFINE_FLEX: non-constant count " #count);

That would be nice, though can Static_assert()s live in the middle of
variable definitions?

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
```