From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754302AbdEGX7w (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2017 19:59:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:34304 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751629AbdEGX7u (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2017 19:59:50 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 16:59:46 -0700 From: Guru Das Srinagesh To: Joe Perches Cc: oleg.drokin@intel.com, andreas.dilger@intel.com, jsimmons@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: lustre: llite: Fix variable length array warning Message-ID: <20170507235946.GA2898@alpha> References: <1494149009-2121-1-git-send-email-gurooodas@gmail.com> <1494199491.31950.52.camel@perches.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1494199491.31950.52.camel@perches.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 04:24:51PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 02:23 -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote: > > Fix sparse warning "warning: Variable length array is used." by using > > kmalloc_array to allocate the required amount of memory instead and > > kfree to deallocate memory after use. > [] > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/xattr.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/xattr.c > [] > > @@ -86,13 +86,17 @@ ll_xattr_set_common(const struct xattr_handler *handler, > > const char *name, const void *value, size_t size, > > int flags) > > { > > - char fullname[strlen(handler->prefix) + strlen(name) + 1]; > > + int fullname_len = strlen(handler->prefix) + strlen(name) + 1; > > + char *fullname = kmalloc_array(fullname_len, sizeof(char), GFP_KERNEL); > > Are you sure about using GFP_KERNEL and that sleeping is > allowed for this function allocation? > I'm not sure about that. Would GFP_ATOMIC be a better flag to use?