>> Did you notice the check "IS_ERR(bp_data)" and the corresponding reaction
>> in this update suggestion?
>
> Yes, but bp_data may still be a valid (as in "not an error") value.
Thanks for your constructive feedback.
> Your commit a1708a2eaded836b ("KVM: s390: Improve determination of sizes in
> kvm_s390_import_bp_data()") made the code more robust, as kmalloc_array() ha
> a builtin overflow check, and will return NULL if overflow is detected.
> However, commit 0624a8eb82efd58e ("KVM: s390: Use memdup_user() rather than
> duplicating code") dropped that safety net again.
* How much are you concerned about the shown software evolution around
multiplications for memory allocations?
* Does there really a probability remain that an inappropriate product
would be calculated here (as the situation was before my two update steps
for this software module)?
* Can it be that you are looking for a variant of a function like "memdup_user"
where values can be passed as separate parameters "count" and "size" so that
the needed multiplication and corresponding overflow check would be performed
together as desired?
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
