linux-kernel - Re: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer

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]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2016 04:03:49 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: gianfar: Less function calls in gfar_ethflow_to_filer_table()
 after error detection

On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 12:47 +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > > * Return directly if a memory allocation failed at the beginning.
> > > 
> > > * Adjust jump targets according to the Linux coding style
> > > convention.
> > > 
> > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
> > 
> > Is this really better?
> > 
> > Perhaps this particular static analysis isn't too useful.
> 
> The opinions are still evolving for such a kind of search pattern.
> 
> 
> > Why not just allocate once and assign a second pointer?
> > 
> > 	local_rqfpr = kmalloc_array(2 * (MAX_FILER_IDX + 1),
> > 				    sizeof(unsigned int), GFP_KERNEL);
> > 	if (!local_rqfpr)
> > 		goto err;
> > 
> > 	local_rqfcr = &local_rqfpr[MAX_FILER_IDX + 1];
> 
> Do you suggest to use only one array (instead of two as before) here?

That's a possibility.

If, as your title suggests, you really want fewer function
calls, (which as far as I saw, you didn't do) that could
be a mechanism to remove both an allocation and a free.