[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1547224903.2793.10.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 08:41:43 -0800
From: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: advansys: use struct_size() in kzalloc()
On Fri, 2019-01-11 at 16:46 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 1/4/19 10:22 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > One of the more common cases of allocation size calculations is
> > finding the
> > size of a structure that has a zero-sized array at the end, along
> > with memory
> > for some number of elements for that array. For example:
> >
> > struct foo {
> > int stuff;
> > void *entry[];
> > };
> >
> > instance = kzalloc(sizeof(struct foo) + sizeof(void *) * count,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Instead of leaving these open-coded and prone to type mistakes, we
> > can now
> > use the new struct_size() helper:
> >
> > instance = kzalloc(struct_size(instance, entry, count),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > This code was detected with the help of Coccinelle.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/scsi/advansys.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/advansys.c b/drivers/scsi/advansys.c
> > index d37584403c33..6c274e6e1c33 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/advansys.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/advansys.c
> > @@ -7576,8 +7576,8 @@ static int asc_build_req(struct asc_board
> > *boardp, struct scsi_cmnd *scp,
> > return ASC_ERROR;
> > }
> >
> > - asc_sg_head = kzalloc(sizeof(asc_scsi_q->sg_head)
> > +
> > - use_sg * sizeof(struct asc_sg_list),
> > GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + asc_sg_head = kzalloc(struct_size(asc_sg_head,
> > sg_list, use_sg),
> > + GFP_ATOMIC);
> > if (!asc_sg_head) {
> > scsi_dma_unmap(scp);
> > scp->result = HOST_BYTE(DID_SOFT_ERROR);
> >
>
> If you want ...
Are we sure there's a benefit to this? It's obvious that the current
code is correct but no-one's likely to test the new code for quite some
time, so changing the code introduces risk. What's the benefit of
making the change in legacy drivers? Just because we have a new, shiny
macro doesn't mean we have to force its use everywhere.
I would recommend we have a rational needs test: so run the coccinelle
script over all the drivers to find out where this construct is used,
but only update those that are actually buggy with the new macro.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists