2024-01-22 07:59:41

by Alexandre Ghiti

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Use kcalloc() instead of kzalloc()

Hi Erick,

On 20/01/2024 14:54, Erick Archer wrote:
> As noted in the "Deprecated Interfaces, Language Features, Attributes,
> and Conventions" documentation [1], size calculations (especially
> multiplication) should not be performed in memory allocator (or similar)
> function arguments due to the risk of them overflowing. This could lead
> to values wrapping around and a smaller allocation being made than the
> caller was expecting. Using those allocations could lead to linear
> overflows of heap memory and other misbehaviors.
>
> So, use the purpose specific kcalloc() function instead of the argument
> count * size in the kzalloc() function.
>
> Also, it is preferred to use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type)
> due to the type of the variable can change and one needs not change the
> former (unlike the latter).
>
> Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments [1]
> Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162
> Signed-off-by: Erick Archer <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 89920f84d0a3..549a76e34c4e 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -901,8 +901,7 @@ static int check_unaligned_access_all_cpus(void)
> {
> unsigned int cpu;
> unsigned int cpu_count = num_possible_cpus();
> - struct page **bufs = kzalloc(cpu_count * sizeof(struct page *),
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> + struct page **bufs = kcalloc(cpu_count, sizeof(*bufs), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> if (!bufs) {
> pr_warn("Allocation failure, not measuring misaligned performance\n");
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv


You can add:

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <[email protected]>

Thanks,

Alex