linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: core: Replace rtw

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: <CAB0Mk-M72dSoT4y7_JfOA6M8TNeGsRoTH5MpX9zwr1h8KPdjUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:02:47 +0530
From:   Bhanusree Mahesh <bhanusreemahesh@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: core: Replace rtw_malloc with kmalloc

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 16:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 03:52:43PM +0530, Bhanusree Pola wrote:
> > Replace rtw_malloc with kmalloc to make code OS independent
> > use kmalloc second argument as GFP_ATOMIC as these are called by functions
> > that holds lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bhanusree Pola <bhanusreemahesh@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > index 18fabf5..6a6683c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap.c
> > @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static void update_BCNTIM(struct adapter *padapter)
> >               }
> >
> >               if (remainder_ielen > 0) {
> > -                     pbackup_remainder_ie = rtw_malloc(remainder_ielen);
> > +                     pbackup_remainder_ie = kmalloc(remainder_ielen,GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> Always run checkpatch.pl on your patches so you do nto get grumpy
> maintainers telling you to run checkpatch.pl on your code :)

>
> Why not fix up all of the callers of this function?

There are many callers of this function. Should I send the whole thing
as of patch series?

>And are you sure
> that GFP_ATOMIC is the correct thing to do here?

yes, because it is called by the function which holds the lock.
correct me if I'm wrong.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h