[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303850332.9308.17366.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:38:52 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
sds@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] flex_arrays: allow zero length flex arrays
On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 21:45 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> Just like kmalloc will allow one to allocate a 0 length segment of memory
> flex arrays should do the same thing. It should bomb if you try to use
> something, but it should at least allow the allocation.
>
> Based-on-patch-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
> ---
>
> lib/flex_array.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/flex_array.c b/lib/flex_array.c
> index 0c33b24..2554a5f 100644
> --- a/lib/flex_array.c
> +++ b/lib/flex_array.c
> @@ -253,9 +253,16 @@ int flex_array_prealloc(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int start,
> unsigned int end;
> struct flex_array_part *part;
>
> + if (!fa->total_nr_elements && !start)
> + return 0;
I guess it works either way, but I'd say that checking for a zero 'len'
prealloc would be more important (and meaningful) than checking a zero
'start'.
If someone passed start=0 and len=44 for a fa->total_nr_elements=0
array, I'd expect -ENOSPC, but this would return 0.
-- 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