[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1296572145.27022.2837.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 06:55:45 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flex_array: Change behaviour on zero size allocations
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:03 +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> rc = flex_array_prealloc(p->type_val_to_struct_array, 0,
> p->p_types.nprim - 1, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
> if (rc)
> goto out;
>
> If p->p_types.nprim is zero, we allocare with total_nr_elements equal
> to zerro and then we try to prealloc with p->p_types.nprim - 1.
> flex_array_prealloc interprets this as an unsigned int and fails,
> because this is bigger than total_nr_elements, which is correct I
> think.
>
> Thoughts?
The most we ever hold in a flex_array is ~2 million entries. So we have
plenty of room to use a normal int if you want.
On the other hand, there's only one user of flex_array_prealloc(), and
making the "end" argument inclusive doesn't seem to be what that user
wants. We might want to either make flex_array_prealloc() take start
and length, or instead make "end" be exclusive of the "end" index.
I thought that flex_array_prealloc would say, effectively: "all put()'s
would work up until 'end'". But, looking at it now, that's probably not
how people will use it.
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists