[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z0QsAm3FdZDJ8kY0@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 09:49:22 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linus.walleij@...aro.org, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
broonie@...nel.org, pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.dev,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] devres: Introduce devm_kmemdup_array()
On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 07:03:36AM +0000, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2024 at 01:35:23AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > Introduce '_array' variant of devm_kmemdup() for the users which lack
> > multiplication overflow check.
>
> I am not sure that this new helper is needed. Unlike allocators for
> brand new objects, such as kmalloc_array(), devm_kmemdup() makes a copy
> of already existing object, which is supposed to be a valid object and
> therefore will have a reasonable size. So there should be no chance for
> hitting this overflow unless the caller is completely confused and calls
> devm_kmemdup() with random arguments (in which case all bets are off).
Don't we want to have a code more robust even if all what you say applies?
Also this makes the call consistent with zillions of others from the alloc
family of calls in the Linux kernel.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists