linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] IB/qib: Adjust two size determinations in qib_init

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:   Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:04:35 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] IB/qib: Adjust two size determinations in
 qib_init_pportdata()

>> @@ -270,13 +268,14 @@ int qib_init_pportdata(struct qib_pportdata *ppd, struct qib_devdata *dd,
>>  	if (!ppd->congestion_entries)
>>  		goto bail_1;
>>  
>> -	size = sizeof(struct cc_table_shadow);
>> -	ppd->ccti_entries_shadow = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	ppd->ccti_entries_shadow = kzalloc(sizeof(*ppd->ccti_entries_shadow),
>> +					   GFP_KERNEL);
>>  	if (!ppd->ccti_entries_shadow)
>>  		goto bail_2;
>>  
>> -	size = sizeof(struct ib_cc_congestion_setting_attr);
>> -	ppd->congestion_entries_shadow = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	ppd->congestion_entries_shadow = kzalloc(sizeof(*ppd
>> +							->congestion_entries_shadow),
>> +						 GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Not related to this patch but is related to your patch-set - can you check
> the array allocations in lines 264 and 268?

Do you refer to source code places here which are affected by the update step
"[PATCH 4/5] IB/qib: Use kcalloc() in qib_init_pportdata()"?


> Besides that:
> Reviewed-by: Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>

Do you find the proposed change for the shown data types really acceptable
in these function calls?

Regards,
Markus