linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open

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]

Message-ID: <54057FF1.2010805@codethink.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:29:37 +0100
From:	Rob Jones <rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: replace int param with size_t for seq_open_private()



On 01/09/14 22:22, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:38:51PM +0100, Rob Jones wrote:
>>>> kmalloc where it is expected to be a size_t.
>>>
>>> Which is a mistake too because allocations are never that large.
>>
>> Yet.
>
> *raised eyebrow*
>
> You do realize that kmalloc() gives physically contiguous allocation, right?

Do please try to not be quite so patronizing. It's very counter-
productive.

> And refuses to allocate more than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE, while we are at it.
> With allocations anywhere near such range being very heavily discouraged.
>
> There might or might not be point in using size_t for kmalloc() argument,
> but "future-proofing" isn't it.

Indeed, and I am following up those arguments with people that may want
to be constructive.

>
>

-- 
Rob Jones
Codethink Ltd
mailto:rob.jones@...ethink.co.uk
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
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/