Re: [PATCH] crypto: using size_add() for kmalloc()

[Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>]

On 2025/4/21 15:10, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 21/04/2025 à 07:51, Su Hui a écrit :
>> It's safer to use size_add() to replace open-coded aithmetic in 
>> allocator
>> arguments, because size_add() can prevent possible overflow problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Su Hui <suhui@nfschina.com>
>> ---
>>   include/crypto/aead.h     | 3 ++-
>>   include/crypto/akcipher.h | 4 +++-
>>   include/crypto/kpp.h      | 3 ++-
>>   3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/crypto/aead.h b/include/crypto/aead.h
>> index 0e8a41638678..cf212d28fe18 100644
>> --- a/include/crypto/aead.h
>> +++ b/include/crypto/aead.h
>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>     #include <linux/atomic.h>
>>   #include <linux/container_of.h>
>> +#include <linux/overflow.h>
>
> You could move this 1 line below, to keep alphabetical order.
> And why do you say that it is redundant in your follow-up mail?
Thanks for your suggestion, I didn't notice this alphabetical order at 
first :( .
Because I found that  <linux/crypto.h> includes <linux/slab.h>, and
<linux/slab.h> includes <linux/overflow.h>, so this overflow.h is 
redundant.
>
>>   #include <linux/crypto.h>
>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
And I also found these <linux/{atomic,container_of,slab,types,list}.h> 
is included by
<linux/crypto.h>, I am trying to remove these redundant headers in v2 patch.

It's sad that remving these duplicate header files didn't save any 
compilation time,
only save some code space.
>>   #include <linux/types.h>
>> @@ -433,7 +434,7 @@ static inline struct aead_request 
>> *aead_request_alloc(struct crypto_aead *tfm,
>> --- a/include/crypto/kpp.h
>> +++ b/include/crypto/kpp.h
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>     #include <linux/atomic.h>
>>   #include <linux/container_of.h>
>> +#include <linux/overflow.h>
>
> You could move this 1 line below, to keep alphabetical order.
This overflow.h is redundant too.
>
>>   #include <linux/crypto.h>
>>
>