Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:18:36 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To:     Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
Cc:     adobriyan@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, labbott@redhat.com,
        sumit.semwal@linaro.org, minchan@kernel.org, ngupta@vflare.org,
        sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaewon31.kim@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] proc/meminfo: introduce extra meminfo
Message-ID: <20200311061836.GA83589@google.com>
References: <20200311034441.23243-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
 <CGME20200311034454epcas1p184680d40f89d37eec7f934074c4a9fcf@epcas1p1.samsung.com>
 <20200311034441.23243-2-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200311034441.23243-2-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (20/03/11 12:44), Jaewon Kim wrote:
[..]
> +#define NAME_SIZE      15
> +#define NAME_BUF_SIZE  (NAME_SIZE + 2) /* ':' and '\0' */
> +
> +struct extra_meminfo {
> +	struct list_head list;
> +	atomic_long_t *val;
> +	int shift_for_page;
> +	char name[NAME_BUF_SIZE];
> +	char name_pad[NAME_BUF_SIZE];
> +};
> +
> +int register_extra_meminfo(atomic_long_t *val, int shift, const char *name)
> +{
> +	struct extra_meminfo *meminfo, *memtemp;
> +	int len;
> +	int error = 0;
> +
> +	meminfo = kzalloc(sizeof(*meminfo), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!meminfo) {
> +		error = -ENOMEM;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	meminfo->val = val;
> +	meminfo->shift_for_page = shift;
> +	strncpy(meminfo->name, name, NAME_SIZE);
> +	len = strlen(meminfo->name);
> +	meminfo->name[len] = ':';
> +	strncpy(meminfo->name_pad, meminfo->name, NAME_BUF_SIZE);

What happens if there is no NULL byte among the first NAME_SIZE bytes
of passed `name'?

[..]

> +	spin_lock(&meminfo_lock);

Does this need to be a spinlock?

	-ss