On 2023/5/31 16:31, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 12:38:26PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
Use struct_size() instead of hand writing it.
This is less verbose and more informative.
Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/object.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/object.c
index 4d1aaee8fe15..4bd693aa4ee0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvif/object.c
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ nvif_object_sclass_get(struct nvif_object *object, struct nvif_sclass **psclass)
u32 size;
while (1) {
- size = sizeof(*args) + cnt * sizeof(args->sclass.oclass[0]);
+ size = struct_size(args, sclass.oclass, cnt);
This is from the original code, but now that you are using the
struct_size() macro static checkers will complain about it. (Maybe they
don't yet?). size is a u32. Never save struct_size() returns to
anything except unsigned long or size_t. (ssize_t is also fine, I
suppose). Otherwise, you do not benefit from the integer overflow
checking.
Sorry, I don't notice the issue caused by type size.
You are right, this patch is wrong because of the type mismatch.
Thanks for your reply!
Su Hui
if (!(args = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL)))
return -ENOMEM;
args->ioctl.version = 0;
regards,
dan carpenter
