linux-kernel - Re: Uninline kcalloc

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

Message-Id: <59F64CB9-832E-4F7C-8A6C-E2CD18563795@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:46:38 -0500
From:	Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Uninline kcalloc

On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> IMHO Having a function to deal with the overflow of a multiplication and
> then do an allocation based on the result is a conflation of two different
> things that need to be separate. kcalloc only exists because there is
> an ancient user space function that somehow got a second parameter instead
> of just using the same as malloc().

I don't understand why these kcalloc patches have anything to do
with kmalloc(SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE(...), ...) you proposed.

It also doesn't make much sense to force the caller to check the
result of SAFE_ARRAY_SIZE() or calculate_array_size() before passing
it to kmalloc().  This is too verbose.

- xi
--
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/