linux-kernel - Re: SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations

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]

Message-ID: <b2a3953b-8e8f-fea1-8a04-9ecafdf31102@users.sourceforge.net>
Date:   Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:30:29 +0200
From:   SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SATA: Fine-tuning for two function implementations

> Hmmm, allocs -> callocs.  Are these actually beneficial?  If so, why?
> Because one multiplication is rolled into the call?

Did the previous size calculations contain the general possibility for
integer overflows?
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html

* Will the computed values usually stay within the limits of the used
  data types so far?

* How much do you care for corresponding checks and source code annotations
  by functions like “devm_kcalloc”?

Regards,
Markus