linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390/zcrypt: fix using the correct variable for sizeof()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YjhvZ3cqNY4laXBu@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:28:23 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
Cc:     hfreude <hfreude@...p.linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
        Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
        "Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/zcrypt: fix using the correct variable for sizeof()

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 01:16:52PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> 
> > On 21. Mar 2022, at 10:26, hfreude <hfreude@...p.linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On 2022-03-19 21:35, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >> While the original code is valid, it is not the obvious choice for the
> >> sizeof() call and in preparation to limit the scope of the list iterator
> >> variable the sizeof should be changed to the size of the variable
> >> being allocated.
> >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
> >> b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
> >> index 3e259befd30a..fcbd537530e8 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/zcrypt_card.c
> >> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ static ssize_t online_store(struct device *dev,
> >> 	list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
> >> 		maxzqs++;
> >> 	if (maxzqs > 0)
> >> -		zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs + 1, sizeof(zq), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> +		zq_uelist = kcalloc(maxzqs + 1, sizeof(*zq_uelist), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> 	list_for_each_entry(zq, &zc->zqueues, list)
> >> 		if (zcrypt_queue_force_online(zq, online))
> >> 			if (zq_uelist) {
> >> base-commit: 34e047aa16c0123bbae8e2f6df33e5ecc1f56601
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> > Thanks Jakob, add my Reviewed-by: Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>
> > Which way is this patch going to be integrated into the kernel ?
> > Usually I pick this and push it into s390 and on the next merge window it will
> > get merged into Linus Torvalds kernel tree.
> > However, sounds like you are about to clean up the kernel in preparation for the
> > changes related to the double linked list api. So maybe you have a patch series
> > which will go into the kernel by another way ?
> > Waiting for an answer, Thanks
> > 
> 
> CC'd Greg KH (in case he has some input) but my assumption is that this just goes
> the normal way through your s390 tree. Most of this cleanup is not in a hurry so
> getting it into the next merge window should be fine.

Normal way is fine.

thanks,

greg k-h