From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM-S390: Improve determination of sizes in kvm_s390_import_bp_data()
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:25:39 +0200
Message-ID: <57B562F3.1080004@bfs.de>
References: <82b84c9c-38a4-4d17-910f-312668dbae01@users.sourceforge.net> <033d8595-d051-1fa8-95b1-5d2056eb5667@users.sourceforge.net>
Reply-To: wharms@bfs.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWE=?= =?UTF-8?B?biBCb3JudHLDpGdlcg==?=
	<borntraeger@de.ibm.com>, Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <033d8595-d051-1fa8-95b1-5d2056eb5667@users.sourceforge.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org



Am 17.08.2016 20:06, schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:29:04 +0200
> 
> Replace the specification of data structures by pointer dereferences
> to make the corresponding size determination a bit safer according to
> the Linux coding style convention.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/guestdbg.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/guestdbg.c b/arch/s390/kvm/guestdbg.c
> index d1f8241..b68db4b 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/guestdbg.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/guestdbg.c
> @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	else if (dbg->arch.nr_hw_bp > MAX_BP_COUNT)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	size = dbg->arch.nr_hw_bp * sizeof(struct kvm_hw_breakpoint);
> +	size = dbg->arch.nr_hw_bp * sizeof(*bp_data);
>  	bp_data = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!bp_data) {
>  		ret = -ENOMEM;
> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	size = nr_wp * sizeof(struct kvm_hw_wp_info_arch);
> +	size = nr_wp * sizeof(*wp_info);
>  	if (size > 0) {
>  		wp_info = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!wp_info) {
> @@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ int kvm_s390_import_bp_data(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  			goto error;
>  		}
>  	}
> -	size = nr_bp * sizeof(struct kvm_hw_bp_info_arch);
> +	size = nr_bp * sizeof(*bp_info);
>  	if (size > 0) {
>  		bp_info = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
>  		if (!bp_info) {


IMHO the common pattern for kmalloc is
  bp_info = kmalloc( nr_bp * sizeof(*bp_info), GFP_KERNEL);

i can not remember code with a check for size < 0, i guess it is here
to avoid an overflow ? since kmalloc takes a size_t argument this would cause
a malloc failure an can be ignored.


just my 2 cents.
re,
 wh