linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: fnic: Use a variable for repeated mem

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 22 Jan 2023 23:56:07 +0530
From:   Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
To:     Satish Kharat <satishkh@...co.com>,
        Sesidhar Baddela <sebaddel@...co.com>,
        Karan Tilak Kumar <kartilak@...co.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
        Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: fnic: Use a variable for repeated mem_size
 computation

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:56:31PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> Use a variable to upfront compute memory size to be allocated,
> instead of repeatedly computing it at different instructions.
> The reduced instruction length also allows to tidy up the code.
> Issue identified using the array_size_dup Coccinelle semantic
> patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@...lo.com>
> ---

Hello,
Any feedback/review comments on this patch proposal please?

Thank you,
./drv

>  drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c | 19 +++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> index e03967463561..7b8ef74fc060 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/fnic/fnic_trace.c
> @@ -544,12 +544,10 @@ int fnic_fc_trace_init(void)
>  	unsigned long fc_trace_buf_head;
>  	int err = 0;
>  	int i;
> +	size_t mem_sz = array_size(PAGE_SIZE, fnic_fc_trace_max_pages);
>  
> -	fc_trace_max_entries = (fnic_fc_trace_max_pages * PAGE_SIZE)/
> -				FC_TRC_SIZE_BYTES;
> -	fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p =
> -		(unsigned long)vmalloc(array_size(PAGE_SIZE,
> -						  fnic_fc_trace_max_pages));
> +	fc_trace_max_entries = mem_sz / FC_TRC_SIZE_BYTES;
> +	fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p = (unsigned long)vmalloc(mem_sz);
>  	if (!fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p) {
>  		pr_err("fnic: Failed to allocate memory for "
>  		       "FC Control Trace Buf\n");
> @@ -557,13 +555,11 @@ int fnic_fc_trace_init(void)
>  		goto err_fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_init;
>  	}
>  
> -	memset((void *)fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p, 0,
> -			fnic_fc_trace_max_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
> +	memset((void *)fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p, 0, mem_sz);
>  
>  	/* Allocate memory for page offset */
> -	fc_trace_entries.page_offset =
> -		vmalloc(array_size(fc_trace_max_entries,
> -				   sizeof(unsigned long)));
> +	mem_sz = array_size(fc_trace_max_entries, sizeof(unsigned long));
> +	fc_trace_entries.page_offset = vmalloc(mem_sz);
>  	if (!fc_trace_entries.page_offset) {
>  		pr_err("fnic:Failed to allocate memory for page_offset\n");
>  		if (fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p) {
> @@ -574,8 +570,7 @@ int fnic_fc_trace_init(void)
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto err_fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_init;
>  	}
> -	memset((void *)fc_trace_entries.page_offset, 0,
> -	       (fc_trace_max_entries * sizeof(unsigned long)));
> +	memset((void *)fc_trace_entries.page_offset, 0, mem_sz);
>  
>  	fc_trace_entries.rd_idx = fc_trace_entries.wr_idx = 0;
>  	fc_trace_buf_head = fnic_fc_ctlr_trace_buf_p;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
> 
>