From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Packard Subject: Re: Unchecked memory allocations in Intel driver Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:18:13 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20110704132751.4eaf5489@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0058788745==" Return-path: Received: from keithp.com (home.keithp.com [63.227.221.253]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C339F4F2 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110704132751.4eaf5489@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Alan Cox , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --===============0058788745== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 13:27:51 +0100, Alan Cox wrot= e: > Found this going over intel_bios.c and cross comparing it with the > Intel/IMG driver intel_bios.c >=20 > temp_mode =3D kzalloc(sizeof(*temp_mode), GFP_KERNEL); This object is about 216 bytes long; would it be reasonable to allocate it on the stack? Or is that pushing stack allocations too far? =2D-=20 keith.packard@intel.com --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFOEgPlQp8BWwlsTdMRAshQAJ9knEEAy/TOvQ7ZhKEcp0y2m/6JzACfcDcE i5iwo6/pwa8Ea+hqnwM16Mg= =ZymR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- --===============0058788745== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel --===============0058788745==--