On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 09:03:06PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote: > On 13. Sep 2024, at 20:40, Andy Shevchenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 09:46:30AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 06:27:26PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote: > >>> Add the __counted_by compiler attribute to the flexible array member > >>> attrs to improve access bounds-checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS and > >>> CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE. > >>> > >>> Increment num before adding a new param_attribute to the attrs array and > >>> adjust the array index accordingly. Increment num immediately after the > >>> first reallocation such that the reallocation for the NULL terminator > >>> only needs to add 1 (instead of 2) to mk->mp->num. > >>> > >>> Use struct_size() instead of manually calculating the size for the > >>> reallocation. > >>> > >>> Use krealloc_array() for the additional NULL terminator. > > > >>> /* Fix up all the pointers, since krealloc can move us */ > >>> for (i = 0; i < mk->mp->num; i++) > > > > Shouldn't this for loop and followed by assignment also be -1:ed? > > That should be fine as mk->mp->num was already incremented before the > for-loop.
Exactly my point. This is behavioural change AFAICS as the original code used the old (-1:ed) value, no? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
