On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Insu Yun wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Insu Yun wrote: > > > > > If nents value is sufficient large, e.g 0x40000000, > > > then it can overflow size in kmalloc and heap overflow happesns. > > > Therefore nents value needs to be checked to prevent overflow. > > > > I don't see why. You seem to be assuming that failure with -EINVAL is > > better than failure with a heap overflow. I disagree; a heap overflow > > provides more debugging information to help locate the reason for the > > underlying problem. > > > > I agree that heap overflow gives more information than -EINVAL. > However, I think -EINVAL already gives sufficient information for debugging. Actually it doesn't. -EINVAL return codes occur all over the place. It's not easy to tell exactly what went wrong when one of them pops up. > And I thin crash is bad, so returning -EINVAL seems better. A better solution in this case would be to avoid overflows by changing the kmalloc call to kmalloc_array, instead of duplicating the code. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
