[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <301ecaf7-62a4-14af-3a5b-7bd76a49c4f6@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:40:50 -0700
From: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Mathias Duckeck <m.duckeck@...bus.de>, Nandor Han <nandor.han@...com>,
Semi Malinen <semi.malinen@...com>, Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: Remove VLA from gpiolib
On 03/12/2018 08:00 AM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 2018-03-10 01:10, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> /* collect all inputs belonging to the same chip */
>> first = i;
>> - memset(mask, 0, sizeof(mask));
>> + memset(mask, 0, sizeof(*mask));
>
> see below
>
>> @@ -2887,14 +2909,30 @@ void gpiod_set_array_value_complex(bool raw, bool can_sleep,
>>
>> while (i < array_size) {
>> struct gpio_chip *chip = desc_array[i]->gdev->chip;
>> - unsigned long mask[BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio)];
>> - unsigned long bits[BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio)];
>> + unsigned long *mask;
>> + unsigned long *bits;
>> int count = 0;
>>
>> + mask = kmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio),
>> + sizeof(*mask),
>> + can_sleep ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_ATOMIC);
>> +
>> + if (!mask)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + bits = kmalloc_array(BITS_TO_LONGS(chip->ngpio),
>> + sizeof(*bits),
>> + can_sleep ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_ATOMIC);
>> +
>> + if (!bits) {
>> + kfree(mask);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (!can_sleep)
>> WARN_ON(chip->can_sleep);
>>
>> - memset(mask, 0, sizeof(mask));
>> + memset(mask, 0, sizeof(*mask));
>
> Hm, it seems you're now only clearing the first word of mask, not the
> entire allocation. Why not just use kcalloc() instead of kmalloc_array
> to have it automatically cleared?
>
Bleh, I didn't think through that carefully. I'll just switch
to kcalloc, especially since it calls kmalloc_array.
> Other random thoughts: maybe two allocations for each loop iteration is
> a bit much. Maybe do a first pass over the array and collect the maximal
> chip->ngpio, do the memory allocation and freeing outside the loop (then
> you'd of course need to preserve the memset() with appropriate length
> computed). And maybe even just do one allocation, making bits point at
> the second half.
>
I was trying to make minimal changes and match the existing code. Is this
likely to be an actual hot path to optimize?
> Does the set function need to be updated to return an int to be able to
> inform the caller that memory allocation failed?
>
That would involve changing the public API. I don't have a problem
doing so if that's what you want.
> Rasmus
>
Thanks,
Laura
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
