[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<PAXPR02MB7248F46DEFA47E79677481B18B152@PAXPR02MB7248.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 18:45:23 +0200
From: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>
Cc: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>,
x86@...nel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] perf/x86/amd/uncore: Use kcalloc*() instead of kzalloc*()
This is an effort to get rid of all multiplications from allocation
functions in order to prevent integer overflows [1].
Here the multiplication is obviously safe. However, using kcalloc*()
is more appropriate [2] and improves readability. This patch has no
effect on runtime behavior.
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 [1]
Link: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/deprecated.html#open-coded-arithmetic-in-allocator-arguments [2]
Reviewed-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Erick Archer <erick.archer@...look.com>
---
Changes in v3:
- Update the commit message to better explain the changes.
- Rebase against linux-next.
Changes in v2:
- Add the "Reviewed-by:" tag.
- Rebase against linux-next.
Previous versions:
v1 -> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/20240116125813.3754-1-erick.archer@gmx.com
v2 -> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-hardening/AS8PR02MB7237A07D73D6D15EBF72FD8D8B392@AS8PR02MB7237.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com
Hi,
This is a new try. In the v2 version Ingo explained that this change
is nonsense since kzalloc() is a perfectly usable interface and there
is no real overflow here.
Anyway, if we have the 2-factor form of the allocator, I think it is
a good practice to use it.
In this version I have updated the commit message to explain that
the code is obviusly safe in contrast with the last version where the
impression was given that there was a real overlow bug.
I hope this patch can be applied this time.
Regards,
Erick
---
arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
index 4ccb8fa483e6..61c0a2114183 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/uncore.c
@@ -479,8 +479,8 @@ static int amd_uncore_ctx_init(struct amd_uncore *uncore, unsigned int cpu)
goto fail;
curr->cpu = cpu;
- curr->events = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*curr->events) *
- pmu->num_counters,
+ curr->events = kcalloc_node(pmu->num_counters,
+ sizeof(*curr->events),
GFP_KERNEL, node);
if (!curr->events) {
kfree(curr);
@@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int amd_uncore_umc_ctx_init(struct amd_uncore *uncore, unsigned int cpu)
uncore->num_pmus += group_num_pmus[gid];
}
- uncore->pmus = kzalloc(sizeof(*uncore->pmus) * uncore->num_pmus,
+ uncore->pmus = kcalloc(uncore->num_pmus, sizeof(*uncore->pmus),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!uncore->pmus) {
uncore->num_pmus = 0;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists