On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 11:02:55PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 22:28, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:26:32AM -0700, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > obj = kmalloc(obj, gfp); > > > > > > Could we avoid repeating "obj" in this pattern? > > > > > > F.e. > > > > > > KMALLOC(obj, gfp); > > > > This appears to be the common feedback, which is good! :) And we can > > still have it return "obj" as well, so it could still be used in > > "return" statements, etc. I will work up a new RFC... > > More macros like this only obfuscate the code further. The name would > become something that makes it really clear there's an assignment. > > assign_kmalloc(obj, gfp) > > There may be better options. Also ALLCAPS could be avoided here, as we > have done with other language-like features (vs. pure constants). So, in looking a code patterns, it seems what we really want more than returning the object that was allocated is actually returning the size of the allocation size requested. i.e.: info->size = struct_size(ptr, flex_member, count); info->obj = kmalloc(info->size, gfp); would become: info->size = kmalloc(info->obj, flex_member, count, gfp); -Kees -- Kees Cook
