Len Baker <len.baker@xxxxxxx> writes: > Although using literals for size calculation in allocator arguments may > be harmless due to compiler warnings in case of overflows, it is better > to refactor the code to avoid the use of open-coded math idiom. > > So, clarify the preferred way in these cases. > > Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Len Baker <len.baker@xxxxxxx> > --- > Changelog v1 -> v2 > - Clarify the sentence by changing "keep <foo> out" with "avoid <foo>" > (Joe Perches). > > Documentation/process/deprecated.rst | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst > index 9d83b8db8874..b5a8be914178 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/deprecated.rst > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ smaller allocation being made than the caller was expecting. Using those > allocations could lead to linear overflows of heap memory and other > misbehaviors. (One exception to this is literal values where the compiler > can warn if they might overflow. Though using literals for arguments as > -suggested below is also harmless.) > +suggested below is also harmless. So, the preferred way in these cases is > +to refactor the code to avoid the open-coded math idiom.) Sorry for being so slow to get to this... honestly, though, I've been staring at it for a bit and cannot figure out what you are trying to communicate. What does "math idiom" mean here? If you are trying to say that using literals is *not* harmless, then perhaps the first part of the parenthetical should be taken out? Confused... jon
