linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem providers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:51:03 +0100
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	arnd@...db.de, pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com,
	mporter@...sulko.com, stefan.wahren@...e.com, wxt@...k-chips.com,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] nvmem: Add a simple NVMEM framework for nvmem
 providers



On 21/07/15 18:59, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/21/2015 02:41 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>> Thanks Stephen for review,
>>
>> On 20/07/15 22:11, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 07/20/2015 07:43 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..bde5528
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
>>>> +               const struct nvmem_config *cfg)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct nvmem_cell **cells;
>>>> +    const struct nvmem_cell_info *info = cfg->cells;
>>>> +    int i, rval;
>>>> +
>>>> +    cells = kzalloc(sizeof(*cells) * cfg->ncells, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> kcalloc?
>>
>> Only reason for using kzalloc is to give the code more flexibility to
>> free any pointer in the array in case of errors.
>
> Still lost. The arrays are allocated down below in the for loop. This is
> allocating a bunch of pointers so using kcalloc() here avoids problems
> with overflows causing kzalloc() to allocate fewer pointers than
> requested. I'm not suggesting we replace the for loop with a kcalloc,
> just this single line.

My bad, I think I miss understood your suggestion, Yes, we can allocate 
pointers using kzalloc.

--srini
>
>>
>>>
>>>> +    if (!cells)
>>>> +        return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < cfg->ncells; i++) {
>>>> +        cells[i] = kzalloc(sizeof(**cells), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +        if (!cells[i]) {
>>>> +            rval = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +            goto err;
>>>> +        }
>>>> +
>
--
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/