[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YieVtBPtKOyatej+@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 17:43:16 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: use kvcalloc for array allocations
On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:33:18AM -0500, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Instead of using array_size, use a function that takes care of the
> multiplication. While at it, switch to kvcalloc since this allocation
> should not be very large.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index afcdd4e693e5..419eb8e14f79 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -1248,8 +1248,7 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_get_cpuid(struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> if (sanity_check_entries(entries, cpuid->nent, type))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - array.entries = vzalloc(array_size(sizeof(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2),
> - cpuid->nent));
> + array.entries = kvcalloc(sizeof(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2), cpuid->nent, GFP_KERNEL);
Even though this allocation is short-lived, should we use
GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT instead?
Otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>
Thanks!
> if (!array.entries)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -1267,7 +1266,7 @@ int kvm_dev_ioctl_get_cpuid(struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> r = -EFAULT;
>
> out_free:
> - vfree(array.entries);
> + kvfree(array.entries);
> return r;
> }
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists