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: <32ab8646-d41d-4dd2-a8c8-93845f198462@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:51:46 -0700
From:   Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>
To:     Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.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

On 10/16/2023 2:23 PM, Alexis Lothoré wrote:
> 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 ?

I also drown when looking at checkpatch.pl -- so many "write-only" 
regexes! But I think the following is what excludes your patch:
$r1 =~ /^[A-Z_][A-Z0-9_]*$

It is a compile-time constant so the compiler can flag on overflow, so 
it's your call to modify or not.

/jeff