From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@gmail.com>, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
Alejandro Colomar <alx@nginx.com>,
Andrew Clayton <a.clayton@nginx.com>,
Andrew Clayton <andrew@digital-domain.net>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [wish] Flexible array members in unions
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 14:13:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202305111410.CFE0875F@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74ee73d2-04e-ea8-9430-93929446e925@codesourcery.com>
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:53:52PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023, Kees Cook via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 06:29:10PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > On 5/11/23 18:07, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Would you allow flexible array members in unions? Is there any
> > > > strong reason to disallow them?
> >
> > Yes please!! And alone in a struct, too.
> >
> > AFAICT, there is no mechanical/architectural reason to disallow them
> > (especially since they _can_ be constructed with some fancy tricks,
> > and they behave as expected.) My understanding is that it's disallowed
> > due to an overly strict reading of the very terse language that created
> > flexible arrays in C99.
>
> Standard C has no such thing as a zero-size object or type, which would
> lead to problems with a struct or union that only contains a flexible
> array member there.
Ah-ha, okay. That root cause makes sense now.
Why are zero-sized objects missing in Standard C? Or, perhaps, the better
question is: what's needed to support the idea of a zero-sized object?
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-11 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-11 16:07 Alejandro Colomar
2023-05-11 16:29 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-05-11 19:07 ` Kees Cook
2023-05-11 20:53 ` Joseph Myers
2023-05-11 21:13 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2023-05-11 21:43 ` Joseph Myers
2023-05-11 22:16 ` Kees Cook
2023-05-11 22:52 ` Joseph Myers
2023-05-12 0:25 ` Alejandro Colomar
2023-05-12 7:49 ` Jonathan Wakely
2023-05-12 6:16 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-12 12:32 ` David Brown
2023-05-15 19:58 ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-18 16:25 ` Martin Uecker
2023-05-18 20:59 ` Qing Zhao
2023-05-19 12:08 ` Martin Uecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202305111410.CFE0875F@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=a.clayton@nginx.com \
--cc=alx.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=alx@nginx.com \
--cc=andrew@digital-domain.net \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).