On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:06:39PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >> No buffer overflows here, but better safe than sorry. > > >> > > >> v2: > > >> - Fixup the sizeof conversion, I've missed the pointer deref (Jani). > > >> - Drop the redundant GFP_ZERO, kcalloc alreads memsets (Jani). > > >> - Use kmalloc_array for the execbuf fastpath to avoid the memset > > >> (Chris). I've opted to leave all other conversions as-is since they > > >> aren't in a fastpath and dealing with cleared memory instead of > > >> random garbage is just generally nicer. > > > > > > I still don't agree with this change to kmalloc_array. The code is > > > written explicitly such that an invalid buffer_count is reported as > > > EINVAL and not ENOMEM. > > > > It's just paranoia - imo consistently using kcalloc/kmalloc array > > where possible is just safer. Note also that the subtest I've added > > explicitly checks for EINVAL, so if we ever botch this it should get > > caught. > > Paranoia for what? Checking the same thing twice in case the compiler > changes it mind? The compiler actually removes the 2nd check since it's the same ;-) I just like the consisten pattern and cozy feeling that we'll have less to worry for potential overflows. I can ditch it if you deem it too offensive. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
