If a randomized structure has an initializer with a dedicated
initializer in it, the field initialzed by that dedicated initializer
may end up at the end of the RecordDecl. This however may skip the
random layout initization check.
struct t {
int a, b, c, d, e;
} x = { .a = 2, 4, 5, 6 };
Let's say that "a" is lands as the last field after randomization. The
call to CheckDesignatedInitializer sets the iterator to the end of the
initializer list. During the next iteration of the initializer list
check, it detects that and fails to issue the error about initializing
a randomized struct with non-designated initializer. Instead, it issues
an error about "excess elements in struct initializer", which is
confusing under these circumstances.
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124694
A record may have more than just FieldDecls in it. If so, then we're
likely to drop them if we only randomize the FieldDecls.
We need to be careful about anonymous structs/unions. Their fields are
made available in the RecordDecl as IndirectFieldDecls, which are listed
after the anonymous struct/union. The ordering doesn't appear to be
super important, however we place them unrandomized at the end of the
RecordDecl just in case. There's also the possiblity of
StaticAssertDecls. We also want those at the end.
All other non-FieldDecls we place at the top, just in case we get
something like:
struct foo {
enum e { BORK };
enum e a;
};
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/185
Reviewed By: aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123958
A randomized structure needs to use a designated or default initializer.
Using a non-designated initializer will result in values being assigned
to the wrong fields.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123763
A randomized structure needs to use a designated or default initializer.
Using a non-designated initializer will result in values being assigned
to the wrong fields.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123763