linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP

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: <2458707.yljdXZV4jf@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 01 Nov 2021 17:43:08 +0100
From:   "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: r8188eu: Use kzalloc() with GFP_ATOMIC in atomic context

On Monday, November 1, 2021 4:18:03 PM CET Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 03:27:32PM +0100, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > Use the GFP_ATOMIC flag of kzalloc() with two memory allocation in
> > report_del_sta_event(). This function is called while holding spinlocks,
> > therefore it is not allowed to sleep. With the GFP_ATOMIC type flag, the
> > allocation is high priority and must not sleep.
> > 
> > This issue is detected by Smatch which emits the following warning:
> > "drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c:6848 report_del_sta_event()
> > warn: sleeping in atomic context".
> > 
> > After the change, the post-commit hook output the following message:
> > "CHECK: Prefer kzalloc(sizeof(*pcmd_obj)...) over
> > kzalloc(sizeof(struct cmd_obj)...)".
> > 
> > According to the above "CHECK", use the preferred style in the first
> > kzalloc().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > v1->v2: Fix an overlooked error due to an incorrect copy-paste
> > 	of the sizeof() operator.
> 
> What commit does this fix?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
Sorry, Greg. Please let me know if I understand correctly what you are asking 
for...

In v1 I introduced a silly error while copy-pasting "sizeof()" and then I 
fixed it in v2.
  
I think that you mean that I should reword the list of changes from v1 
because I'm not explaining properly why I submitted v2.
  
Is my understanding correct? If so, I have no problem in submitting v3. 

Thank you in advance, 

Fabio

P.S.: I had to resend this email and I want apologize for the noise. It seems 
that it contained HTML parts and for this reasons it was rejected by the 
relevant lists.