netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/16] net: mscc: ocelot: drop the use of the "lags" array

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]

Message-ID: <20210115120230.GF3654@piout.net>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:02:30 +0100
From:   Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 12/16] net: mscc: ocelot: drop the use of
 the "lags" array

On 15/01/2021 13:05:47+0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > -static void ocelot_set_aggr_pgids(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> > +static int ocelot_set_aggr_pgids(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> >  {
> > +	struct net_device **bonds;
> >  	int i, port, lag;
> >  
> > +	bonds = kcalloc(ocelot->num_phys_ports, sizeof(struct net_device *),
> > +			GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!bonds)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> 
> I remember somebody complaining about the temporary memory allocation
> done here, but I can't seem to find that email for some reason.
> 
> Is it ok if I still keep the dynamic allocation there, though? Felix has
> up to 5 user ports, Seville has up to 9, Ocelot up to 11. I would like
> to not hardcode anything, in case (who knows!) more switches get added.
> 

I was probably the one, the main reason being that this make this
function able to fail. Removing the dynamic allocation would ensure it
never fails. However, I didn't suggest any other solution so I'm fine if
you keep it.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com