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 > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Meyer <thomas@xxxxxxxx> > --- > > 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. regards, dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
