On 01/11/2018 11:59, andrey simiklit wrote:
Hello,
Please find my comments below:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:24 PM Eric Engestrom
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
warning: field 'base' with variable sized type 'struct
drm_i915_query_topology_info'
not at the end of a struct or class is a GNU extension
[-Wgnu-variable-sized-type-not-at-end]
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
---
src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
index 5dbd06075722f8cc644e..242fe163447a4265acfb 100644
--- a/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
+++ b/src/intel/dev/gen_device_info.c
@@ -991,8 +991,8 @@ gen_device_info_update_from_masks(struct
gen_device_info *devinfo,
uint32_t n_eus)
{
struct {
- struct drm_i915_query_topology_info base;
uint8_t data[100];
+ struct drm_i915_query_topology_info base;
} topology;
I can be wrong, but it seems like here the 'data[100]' field should
rather be placed after the 'base' field
because it was done as far as I understood to allocate memory on the stack
for the 'drm_i915_query_topology_info::data[]' field. I guess that
this patch
may introduce the stack corruption on the following line:
for (int b = 0; b < topology.base.subslice_offset; b++)
topology.base.data[b] = (slice_mask >> (b * 8)) & 0xff;
Andrey's right, the base field needs to be first and data following.
nack :(
assert((slice_mask & 0xff) == slice_mask);
--
Cheers,
Eric
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Regards,
Andrii.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
