Use 2-factor argument form kvcalloc() instead of kvzalloc().
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c index b0c3422cb01f..1a896a24288a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ nouveau_svm_fault_buffer_ctor(struct nouveau_svm *svm, s32 oclass, int id) if (ret) return ret;
- buffer->fault = kvzalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault) * buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL); + buffer->fault = kvcalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault), buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL); if (!buffer->fault) return -ENOMEM;
Lack of documentation inside Linux here is a bit annoying, but do I understand it correctly, that the main (and probably only) difference is that kvcalloc checks whether the multiplication overflows and returns NULL in this case?
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:21 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org wrote:
Use 2-factor argument form kvcalloc() instead of kvzalloc().
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c index b0c3422cb01f..1a896a24288a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ nouveau_svm_fault_buffer_ctor(struct nouveau_svm *svm, s32 oclass, int id) if (ret) return ret;
buffer->fault = kvzalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault) * buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL);
buffer->fault = kvcalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault), buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL); if (!buffer->fault) return -ENOMEM;-- 2.27.0
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 05:28:47AM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
Lack of documentation inside Linux here is a bit annoying, but do I understand it correctly, that the main (and probably only) difference is that kvcalloc checks whether the multiplication overflows and returns NULL in this case?
That's correct. :)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:21 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org wrote:
Use 2-factor argument form kvcalloc() instead of kvzalloc().
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c index b0c3422cb01f..1a896a24288a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c @@ -992,7 +992,7 @@ nouveau_svm_fault_buffer_ctor(struct nouveau_svm *svm, s32 oclass, int id) if (ret) return ret;
buffer->fault = kvzalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault) * buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL);
buffer->fault = kvcalloc(sizeof(*buffer->fault), buffer->entries, GFP_KERNEL); if (!buffer->fault) return -ENOMEM;-- 2.27.0
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 10:03:19AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 05:28:47AM +0200, Karol Herbst wrote:
Lack of documentation inside Linux here is a bit annoying, but do I understand it correctly, that the main (and probably only) difference is that kvcalloc checks whether the multiplication overflows and returns NULL in this case?
That's correct. :)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:21 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org wrote:
Use 2-factor argument form kvcalloc() instead of kvzalloc().
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/162 Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva gustavoars@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org
I'll take this in my -next tree.
Thanks -- Gustavo
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Gustavo A. R. Silva -
Karol Herbst -
Kees Cook