On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:53 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Sounds good, and you'll get a pull request for that tomorrow. Then I'll
> send via Andrew a patch to add __vcalloc, so that the accounting is
> restored.
Ahh. So you used kvmalloc() mainly because the regular vmalloc()
doesn't do the gfp-flags.
We do have that "__vmalloc()" thing, but the double underscore naming
makes it a bit unfortunate (since it tends to mean "local special use
only").
I suspect you could just make "vcalloc()".
That said, I also do wonder if we could possibly change "kvcalloc()"
to avoid the warning. The reason I didn't like your patch is that
kvmalloc_node() only takes a "size_t", and the overflow condition
there is that "MAX_INT".
But the "kvcalloc()" case that takes a "number of elements and size"
should _conceptually_ warn not when the total size overflows, but when
either number or the element size overflows.
So I would also accept a patch that just changes how "kvcalloc()"
works (or how "kvmalloc_array()" works).
It's a bit annoying how we've ended up losing that "n/size"
information by the time we hit kvmalloc().
Linus
