linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: elx: libefc: Prefer kcalloc over open coded arithmetic

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: <8edb44da-87e3-7e81-c9a8-54b27dde2fc1@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Sep 2021 09:55:19 -0700
From:   James Smart <jsmart2021@...il.com>
To:     Len Baker <len.baker@....com>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Ram Vegesna <ram.vegesna@...adcom.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, target-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: elx: libefc: Prefer kcalloc over open coded
 arithmetic

On 9/4/2021 11:24 PM, Len Baker wrote:
> As noted in the "Deprecated Interfaces, Language Features, Attributes,
> and Conventions" documentation [1], size calculations (especially
> multiplication) should not be performed in memory allocator (or similar)
> function arguments due to the risk of them overflowing. This could lead
> to values wrapping around and a smaller allocation being made than the
> caller was expecting. Using those allocations could lead to linear
> overflows of heap memory and other misbehaviors.
> 
> So, use the purpose specific kcalloc() function instead of the argument
> count * size in the kzalloc() function.
> 
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.14/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments
> 
> Signed-off-by: Len Baker <len.baker@....com>

Looks good.  Thanks

Reviewed-by: James Smart <jsmart2021@...il.com>

-- james