netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: use kmalloc() than kmalloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Nov 2015 13:43:04 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: use kmalloc() than kmalloc_array().

David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:50:07 -0800
> 
> > I do not feel we should go back to kmalloc() just because
> > vmalloc_array() does not exist yet.
> 
> Agreed.
> 

Please change as you like.

I was thinking to introduce a helper that does vmalloc() when
kmalloc() failed because locations that do

  ptr = kmalloc(size, GFP_NOFS);
  if (!ptr)
      ptr = vmalloc(size); /* Wrong because GFP_KERNEL is used implicitly */

are found. I just noticed that inet_ehash_locks_alloc() is doing

  ptr = kmalloc_array(count, size, GFP_KERNEL);
  if (!ptr)
      ptr = vmalloc(count * size); /* Wrong because overflow is not checked */

and wanted to know your intent.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html