On 01/09/2016 12:32, Heiko Carstens wrote: > 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"? It's not an issue but I for one still prefer consistent use of kmalloc_array and kcalloc. Paolo -- 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
