From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E169CEB64D9 for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 15:08:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230019AbjF0PIn (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:08:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35946 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229680AbjF0PIm (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2023 11:08:42 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DF4C10CC; Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:08:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1687878521; x=1719414521; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IA11Aco+T/x16l6i98pdxr6nAnpI3sTZ+UOpKHDDBJQ=; b=R8MofxyQ5xqpl+kpl6KBCo1UcWyJWH1iT5VP8FG3gPeXJFDIFo2PxV9e a3gAR+1eI3nbXUe8LWhYlvmP/YbDtoRX7supqro3fWKC+0tLvX6kILeVk jSBUHmKWZySu50lcVaZaqYAXa6jswOhJUTWbbubi6eKd/QkjHsjcloZQ1 P+EoFO1wKur/lSOxhYK2Eoztk3m1Y6x4O6tKHahbqvygvKpSlkQpFE3Ko X2PIDablPmQCJGOTMH00Q/js82Io6ycdbtNhwVyW9xLh+TRt8e4Anpfey Vo8q8605nqn7SXSX4Pixu8GLE6LWMpzZwkFs2nTJWxUjjvfakxBLOO5mC A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10754"; a="364144632" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,162,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="364144632" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2023 08:06:12 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10754"; a="840717944" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,162,1684825200"; d="scan'208";a="840717944" Received: from btalbott-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.238.85]) ([10.212.238.85]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2023 08:06:12 -0700 Message-ID: <487cc70c-9cb1-2b00-acb3-a1410c8be7c0@intel.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:06:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/24] x86/sgx: use vmalloc_array and vcalloc Content-Language: en-US To: Julia Lawall Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, kuba@kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20230627144339.144478-1-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <20230627144339.144478-22-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <004bc553-4dca-070b-c203-adcb50d4112d@intel.com> <896979d6-7365-e75-52fe-ad929e3e8620@inria.fr> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <896979d6-7365-e75-52fe-ad929e3e8620@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org On 6/27/23 08:01, Julia Lawall wrote: > If it is certain that no overflow is possible, then perhaps it is fine to > drop the patch? It's impossible in practice in this case because the code is 64-bit only and uses an 'unsigned long'. But, like I said, I can see that same vmalloc() being copied-and-pasted or moved to a 32-bit system and theoretically causing problems in rare scenarios. I'd probably just drop this patch.