On 25/10/24 14:14, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Fri, 2024-10-25 at 14:10 -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end was introduced in GCC-14, and we are
getting ready to enable it, globally.
Move the conflicting declaration to the end of the structure and add
a code comment. Notice that `struct ieee80211_chanctx_conf` is a
flexible structure --a structure that contains a flexible-array member.
Fix 50 of the following warnings:
net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h:895:39: warning: structure containing a flexible
array member is not at the end of another structure
[-Wflex-array-member-not-at-end]
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <[email protected]>
---
net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h b/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h
index e7815ffeaf30..c65adbdf2166 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h
+++ b/net/mac80211/ieee80211_i.h
@@ -892,9 +892,10 @@ struct ieee80211_chanctx {
/* temporary data for search algorithm etc. */
struct ieee80211_chan_req req;
- struct ieee80211_chanctx_conf conf;
-
bool radar_detected;
+
+ /* MUST be last - ends in a flexible-array member. */
+ struct ieee80211_chanctx_conf conf;
};
Oi. That's not just a warnings problem, that's actually a pretty stupid
bug, this will surely get used and radar_detected will alias stuff that
the driver puts there - at least for drivers using chanctx_data_size,
which is a couple: ath9k, iwlmvm, mt792x, rwt89 and hwsim.
Could you resend with a description that this is a bugfix and
Fixes: bca8bc0399ac ("wifi: mac80211: handle ieee80211_radar_detected() for
MLO")
Yeah, I was actually going to mention this commit, as it's the one that
introduced
that `bool radar_detected` to the flex struct. However, it wasn't obvious to me
how `struct ieee80211_chanctx_conf conf` could overwrite `radar_detected` as I
didn't
see `conf->drv_priv` being accessed through `struct struct
ieee80211_chanctx_conf`.
please? Or I can do it myself I guess, but ...
Sure thing. I can CC stable as well.
This shouldn't go to next, it should go to 6.12 since that broke it...
OK, in that case I just remove the `[next]` part from the subject line.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
