From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755992AbaEOXHc (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 19:07:32 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:39495 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755645AbaEOXHa (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 19:07:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:07:28 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Joe Perches Cc: Andy Whitcroft , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict test for kmalloc/kzalloc with multiply Message-Id: <20140515160728.aa401aa7b21c88ea098ddc60@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1400195086.5058.26.camel@joe-AO725> References: <1400024929.24350.76.camel@joe-AO725> <20140515155844.041ee0bc17aae5f3b8eacd70@linux-foundation.org> <1400195086.5058.26.camel@joe-AO725> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:04:46 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 15:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:48:49 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > > > Protect against sizeof overflows by preferring > > > kmalloc_array and kcalloc to kmalloc/kzalloc > > > with a sizeof multiply. > [] > > > +# check for k[mz]alloc with multiplies that could be kmalloc_array/kcalloc > > > + if ($^V && $^V ge 5.10.0 && > > > + $line =~ /\b($Lval)\s*\=\s*(?:$balanced_parens)?\s*(k[mz]alloc)\s*\(\s*($FuncArg)\s*\*\s*($FuncArg)/) { > > > + my $oldfunc = $3; > > > + my $a1 = $4; > > > + my $a2 = $10; > > > + my $newfunc = "kmalloc_array"; > > > + $newfunc = "kcalloc" if ($oldfunc eq "kzalloc"); > > > + if ($a1 =~ /^sizeof\s*\S/ || $a2 =~ /^sizeof\s*\S/) { > > > + CHK("ALLOC_WITH_MULTIPLY", > > > + "Prefer $newfunc over $oldfunc with multiply\n" . $herecurr); > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > > Why hide this behind --strict? > > Non-obvious CHK/--strict tests are less controversial. > > The block above it > "prefer foo = alloc(sizeof(*foo)) over foo = alloc(sizeof(struct bar))" > used CHK so I copied it. > > I've no objection to making it WARN instead, I'd prefer that - this is one of my regular comment-on-during-review things.