[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUS2aMd5B2nQOpQFdQGE7EvWMCea+dMzS7R7_yZ4LdONw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:00:03 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Bornträger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Walter Harms <wharms@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] KVM: s390: Use memdup_user() rather than
duplicating code
Hi Markus,
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:47 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>> Did you notice the check "IS_ERR(bp_data)" and the corresponding reaction
>>> in this update suggestion?
>>
>> Yes, but bp_data may still be a valid (as in "not an error") value.
>
> Thanks for your constructive feedback.
>
>> Your commit a1708a2eaded836b ("KVM: s390: Improve determination of sizes in
>> kvm_s390_import_bp_data()") made the code more robust, as kmalloc_array() ha
>> a builtin overflow check, and will return NULL if overflow is detected.
>> However, commit 0624a8eb82efd58e ("KVM: s390: Use memdup_user() rather than
>> duplicating code") dropped that safety net again.
>
> * How much are you concerned about the shown software evolution around
> multiplications for memory allocations?
Enough to write my reply ;-)
> * Does there really a probability remain that an inappropriate product
> would be calculated here (as the situation was before my two update steps
> for this software module)?
Perhaps not. Hence my "Probably not an issue here, ...".
> * Can it be that you are looking for a variant of a function like "memdup_user"
> where values can be passed as separate parameters "count" and "size" so that
> the needed multiplication and corresponding overflow check would be performed
> together as desired?
If there are enough uses, and people like it, adding memdup_user_array()
may be a good idea...
P.S. Why do your questions make me think of a scientific paper? ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists