On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 11:38:15AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:30:58 +0200 > > A multiplication for the size determination of a memory allocation > indicated that an array data structure should be processed. > Thus use the corresponding function "kmalloc_array". > > This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/s390/hypfs/hypfs_diag0c.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/hypfs/hypfs_diag0c.c b/arch/s390/hypfs/hypfs_diag0c.c > index 0f1927c..61418a8 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/hypfs/hypfs_diag0c.c > +++ b/arch/s390/hypfs/hypfs_diag0c.c > @@ -48,7 +48,9 @@ static void *diag0c_store(unsigned int *count) > > get_online_cpus(); > cpu_count = num_online_cpus(); > - cpu_vec = kmalloc(sizeof(*cpu_vec) * num_possible_cpus(), GFP_KERNEL); > + cpu_vec = kmalloc_array(num_possible_cpus(), > + sizeof(*cpu_vec), > + GFP_KERNEL); How does this improve the situation? For any real life scenario this can't overflow, but it does add an extra (pointless) runtime check, since num_possible_cpus() is not a compile time constant. So, why is this an "issue"? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
