LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flex_array: Change behaviour on zero size allocations
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:31:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1296491497.7797.3792.camel@nimitz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110131085213.GK3070@secunet.com>

On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 09:52 +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
>  int flex_array_put(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr, void *src,
>                         gfp_t flags)
>  {
> -       int part_nr = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, element_nr);
> +       int part_nr;
>         struct flex_array_part *part;
>         void *dst;
> 
> +       if (!fa->element_size)
> +               return 0;
>         if (element_nr >= fa->total_nr_elements)
>                 return -ENOSPC; 

I think this still has some of the issues of the earlier patch.  The
zero-size check needs to be moved after the ->total_nr_elements check.
Otherwise, this won't produce any errors:

	fa = flex_array_alloc(0, 100, GFP_KERNEL);
	flex_array_put(fa, 1001, ptr, GFP_KERNEL);

> @@ -284,6 +297,8 @@ void *flex_array_get(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
>         int part_nr = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, element_nr);
>         struct flex_array_part *part;
> 
> +       if (!fa->total_nr_elements || !fa->element_size)
> +               return NULL;
>         if (element_nr >= fa->total_nr_elements)
>                 return NULL;
>         if (elements_fit_in_base(fa))

Do you really need to check fa->total_nr_elements both for zero and
against element_nr?  Seems a but superfluous to me.

-- Dave


  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-31 16:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-31  8:52 Steffen Klassert
2011-01-31 16:31 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2011-02-01 10:24   ` Steffen Klassert
2011-02-01 11:03     ` Steffen Klassert
2011-02-01 14:55       ` Dave Hansen
2011-02-01 15:20         ` Eric Paris
2011-02-02  7:55           ` Steffen Klassert

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=1296491497.7797.3792.camel@nimitz \
    --to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=eparis@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] flex_array: Change behaviour on zero size allocations' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).