linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: wilc1000: use vmm

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: <74eac5f2-228b-4775-a101-53b2fdd5bf86@bootlin.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 23:23:39 +0200
From:   Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>
To:     Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
        Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Ajay Singh <ajay.kathat@...rochip.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: wilc1000: use vmm_table as array in wilc struct

Hello Jeff,

On 10/16/23 17:26, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 10/16/2023 1:29 AM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c
>> index 58bbf50081e4..e4113f2dfadf 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/microchip/wilc1000/wlan.c
>> @@ -1492,7 +1492,7 @@ int wilc_wlan_init(struct net_device *dev)
>>       }
>>         if (!wilc->vmm_table)
>> -        wilc->vmm_table = kzalloc(WILC_VMM_TBL_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>> +        wilc->vmm_table = kzalloc(WILC_VMM_TBL_SIZE * sizeof(u32), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> this is probably OK since the values are constant, but kcalloc() is generally
> preferred

Ok, I can submit a new version with kcalloc. One thing that I do not understand
however is why checkpatch.pl remains silent on this one. I guess it should raise
the ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY warning here. I tried to dive into the script to
understand why, but I drowned in regexes (and Perl, with which I am not familiar
with). Could it be because of both sides being constant ?

Thanks,
Alexis

-- 
Alexis Lothoré, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com