From: Yum Rayan <yum.rayan@gmail.com>
To: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:21:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df35dfeb050329222132823897@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <424993B0.9010306@osdl.org>
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:43:12 -0800, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote:
> Yum Rayan wrote:
> > Attempt to reduce stack usage in module.c (linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3).
> > Specifically from checkstack.pl
> >
> > Before patch
> > ------------------
> > who_is_doing_it: 512
> > obsolete_params: 160
> >
> > After patch
> > ----------------
> > who_is_doing_it: none
> So all function local variables are in registers?
Yes, all function local variables of the patched who_is_doing_it(...)
are in registers.
> > Also while at it, fix following in who_is_doing_it(...)
> > - use only as much memory is needed
> > - do not write past array index for the boundary case
>
> I don't see a boundary case problem with the current code,
> hence I don't see why the kmalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL) is
> needed...
Let's consider the original code and len = 513
1399 static void who_is_doing_it(void)
1400 {
1401 /* Print out all the args. */
1402 char args[512];
1403 unsigned long i, len = current->mm->arg_end -
current->mm->arg_start;
1404
1405 if (len > 512)
1406 len = 512;
1407
1408 len -= copy_from_user(args, (void
*)current->mm->arg_start, len);
1409
1410 for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
1411 if (args[i] == '\0')
1412 args[i] = ' ';
1413 }
1414 args[i] = 0;
1415 printk("ARGS: %s\n", args);
1416 }
After lines 1410 thru 1413, "i" wil be 512. So line 1414 will be
"args[512] = 0". But args is 512 byte array with last legally
accessible element at 511?
> File names start one level deeper than wanted. They should begin
> with linux/ or a/ or ./ e.g.
> There are plenty of docs on this, please let me know if you need
> references to them.
Point noted. Will post patch to linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches,
hopefully making it more clear. Reworked patch at end of email.
>
> > @@ -769,15 +769,25 @@
> > struct kernel_param *kp;
> > unsigned int i;
> > int ret;
> > + char *sym_name = NULL;
> > + unsigned int sym_name_len = 0;
> >
> > kp = kmalloc(sizeof(kp[0]) * num, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!kp)
> > return -ENOMEM;
>
> Style thing, I guess, but since the case of num == 0 doesn't do
> anything here, I would just begin the function with:
>
> if (!num)
> return;
> or goto out;
> to maintain one return point.
>
> and then eliminate the kmalloc()s, if (num), kfree()s, and
> parse_args().
Was attempting to preserve the call flow of the previous author. But
yes, this makes more sense. I changed code to return "0" for !num
case.
Thanks,
Rayan
Summary: Reduce stack usage in obsolete_params() and who_is_doing_it()
Target: linux-2.6.12-rc1-mm3
Signed-off-by: Yum Rayan <yum.rayan@gmail.com>
--- a/kernel/module.c 2005-03-25 22:11:06.000000000 -0800
+++ b/kernel/module.c 2005-03-29 22:16:09.000000000 -0800
@@ -767,17 +767,27 @@
const char *strtab)
{
struct kernel_param *kp;
- unsigned int i;
+ char *sym_name;
+ unsigned int sym_name_len, i;
int ret;
+ if (!num)
+ return 0;
+
kp = kmalloc(sizeof(kp[0]) * num, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!kp)
return -ENOMEM;
- for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
- char sym_name[128 + sizeof(MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX)];
+ sym_name_len = 128 + sizeof (MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX);
+ sym_name = kmalloc(sym_name_len, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!sym_name) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto free_kp;
+ }
- snprintf(sym_name, sizeof(sym_name), "%s%s",
+ for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
+
+ snprintf(sym_name, sym_name_len, "%s%s",
MODULE_SYMBOL_PREFIX, obsparm[i].name);
kp[i].name = obsparm[i].name;
@@ -791,13 +801,15 @@
printk("%s: falsely claims to have parameter %s\n",
name, obsparm[i].name);
ret = -EINVAL;
- goto out;
+ goto free_sym;
}
kp[i].arg = &obsparm[i];
}
ret = parse_args(name, args, kp, num, NULL);
- out:
+ free_sym:
+ kfree(sym_name);
+ free_kp:
kfree(kp);
return ret;
}
@@ -1399,12 +1411,16 @@
static void who_is_doing_it(void)
{
/* Print out all the args. */
- char args[512];
+ char *args;
unsigned long i, len = current->mm->arg_end - current->mm->arg_start;
if (len > 512)
len = 512;
+ args = kmalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!args)
+ return;
+
len -= copy_from_user(args, (void *)current->mm->arg_start, len);
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
@@ -1413,6 +1429,7 @@
}
args[i] = 0;
printk("ARGS: %s\n", args);
+ kfree(args);
}
/* Allocate and load the module: note that size of section 0 is always
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-30 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-29 7:13 [PATCH] Reduce stack usage in module.c Yum Rayan
2005-03-29 17:43 ` Randy.Dunlap
2005-03-30 6:21 ` Yum Rayan [this message]
2005-03-30 18:01 ` Randy.Dunlap
2005-03-30 19:44 ` Jesper Juhl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=df35dfeb050329222132823897@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yum.rayan@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.