On Nov 30 2011, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:08:00PM +0100, Thomas Meyer wrote:
The advantage of kcalloc is, that will prevent integer overflows which could
result from the multiplication of number of elements and size and it is also
a bit nicer to read.
The semantic patch that makes this change is available
in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/25/107
Fine by me. Thanks. As stated by others though you might want to change the description
to not imply it's mainly about overflows.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <thomas@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff -u -p a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/lis3l02dq_ring.c b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/lis3l02dq_ring.c
--- a/drivers/staging/iio/accel/lis3l02dq_ring.c 2011-11-13 11:07:47.933826988 +0100
+++ b/drivers/staging/iio/accel/lis3l02dq_ring.c 2011-11-28 20:00:44.704446880 +0100
@@ -93,8 +93,7 @@ static int lis3l02dq_read_all(struct iio
struct spi_message msg;
int ret, i, j = 0;
- xfers = kzalloc((buffer->scan_count) * 2
- * sizeof(*xfers), GFP_KERNEL);
+ xfers = kcalloc((buffer->scan_count) * 2, sizeof(*xfers), GFP_KERNEL);
I've looked at these and none of them can actually overflow.
But if they could then there would still be the potential for
overflow here. If buffer->scan_count were a negative number then
the first for loop could cause memory corruption.
Still it's a cleanup and the patch is fine.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
